Will Torbald

Why do you care that he's a fascist? Unless he's throwing commies off helicopters he's as fascist as I am a golden retriever.

I accept it. All the supposed immortal heroes will be forgotten. The human species will be extinct one day. The sun will destroy the earth one day. The universe will expand forever and have its heat death. No one will come. No one will know we existed. It does not matter. It shouldn't matter. It's better that it doesn't. Striving for heroism and salvation, wishing to change the world, to make it better, to have your name written in history, to not be a forgotten aunt - all those achievements will be for nothing. They only make you feel good now if your ego demands it. And if you do become a hero, you're only temporarily so after the culture and morality of society changes and spits on you after they have been subverted. And definitely after we become extinct. We were nothing and we will be nothing. Nothing wrong with that.

What you quoted isn't UPB itself, only an argument that tries to establish UPB as a valid concept to even think about. Everything else that you're asking stems from that misconception, which frankly doesn't make a lot of sense.

I know I'm butting into this argument, but I just want to point out that dsayer's arguments are not the arguments of UPB. If you want to understand what UPB is I wouldn't have you confused with his own ideas on morality. When it is said that UPB is needed to argue against it, it means that you are asking another person that they "should conform to reason and evidence" or that they should adapt their behavior to a universal standard of truth. Which is what UPB says in the first place, that the good behavior is one that conforms to universal principles.

As far as I understand, UPB doesn't have a central value with which you judge good and evil. You don't say "If it's bad for X then it is evil" in it. Evil is defined as that which is universally impreferable, and the good as universally preferable through all the tests and proofs it has.

I almost did a spit take when I saw this on twitter. Ben said it was on commission too https://mobile.twitter.com/GrrrGraphics/status/735480298473824257

I don't know what you're trying to know here. There are physical objects, and then there's the concept that describes the object - but concepts are just ideas, not the objects themselves.

Yeah, it was surprisingly straightforward as a review. The reaction I saw in twitter and places like 4chan ranged from utter surprise, "what...?" comments and "he's finally lost it".

I'm guilty of having similar issues, however, my insight is that there isn't a hidden desire or passion that you are unaware of. You just don't have it in you in the first place. The candle isn't lit to begin with, so you're not going to find the fire that way. You would have to focus on becoming enkindled first, and the rest of the details of what to do will come by themselves.

I wonder if people are going to think the same with the Doom review.

This is literally not an argument. Your interpretation is wrong, your 2+2 is wrong.

With all due respect, this is nonsense. A thief is specifically disregarding property rights when they take something. What you are doing is an interpretative argument of an action and inserting your narrative into it. "They are telling you" is a magic trick of words because actions don't tell stories. Objectively a thief has violated, disregarded, and broken property rights. You might argue back that he's affirming those rights for himself, but that is also another interpretative magical sophism of this argument. They are being selfish and egoistic like Stirner in the sense that they can claim that it is their thing because they are now in posession and control of that which they stole, but such philosophies are in direct opposition of rationalistic property rights in the first place.

My response to the nitwit who pretends to know how to read minds is "They have email in North Korea?"

Reason doesn't bend to preference. 2+2=4 isn't a preference, it's a fact. Moral rules can only be moral if they are universal, otherwise they are opinions. All opinions are subjective, but such ideas cannot be called morality.

Information isn't dumped, it is given. It doesn't need to be directly or bluntly. But men do need to know because it significantly changes the motivation for the man. For example, I found out one of my friends whom I know from online only couldn't have children herself, but she didn't come forth to tell me that, it came out naturally as part of a conversation. It surprised me, but it also made sense since it put in perspective all her behaviors that I thought were odd for someone young as her. If you know the man you're going out with wants to date you for real, it is important to let him know. If he is only interested as a friend, or a coleague, or a fling, it doesn't need to be known immediately before the coffee is cold.

All the left does is attack anything non leftist. I don't see how this is surprising.

Cool, but morality has to pass the philosopher test, not the five year old test to be valid.

This also avoids the second point I made about how if logical inconsistency is the standard of immorality then other illogical behaviors are evil too. For example, telling someone to shut up is using your voice to silence another which would be equally evil as murder because it's the affirmation of your voice against the voice of another. A debate would also became the affirmation of my opinion against yours thus also wrong to do. In essence, what you claim is objective morality isn't morality even if it is objective. Logic is not a sufficient requirement for moral behavior even if it is a necessary one. You do need to explain why it is sufficient to be hypocritical to be evil. You do need to differentiate violent by hypocrisy from non violent. Which UPB does, instead. It does try to explain in moral terms the good and the evil beyond the objective hypocrisies which are still there but can't be the complete story.

You chose to live there. You didn't choose to be born in a world full of states where the only option is to move to another state, not out of them.

"internally inconsistent" is not a moral statement, but a logical one. You haven't explained why logically inconsistent actions are evil, nor why people should behave in logically consistent ways - since there are more illogical behaviors besides those, too, and people would also be immoral according to you.

"That is so islamophobic. I will not allow the prophet to be insulte in this lecture" At this point a couple guards have come to take you out.

The fact that people disagree and have different opinions is a sign that people are independent thinkers. I would freak out if everyone shared the exact same idea all the time. In that sense, to ask if this place is for one opinion or the other isn't that interesting because the whole point is to have discussions between multiple perspectives.

"Not at all, Islam doesn't say any of that. Whoever said that is not teaching true Islam!" - this is too easy.

Maybe. But it doesn't follow that income taxes, government schools, or welfare protect people from nukes.

No, I don't think we can build that. What you just said is absolute gibberish. On the topic of having atoms and cells replaced, yeah it's complicated, but it's the same philosophical thought experiment of the boat that has all its parts replaced at the end of the journey. So what if your atoms are replaced? What matters is how they are arranged.