116 replies to this topic

[8143FF763271]

The fact that some people percieve something as having intrinsic value does not mean that it has intrinsic value.

If any goal isn't an instrumental means to something else, it has intrinsic value. Even on an individual basis.

[Bone]

If any goal isn't an instrumental means to something else, it has intrinsic value. Even on an individual basis.

[NapisaurusRex]

If so many people don't 'understand' what you are attempting to say, then maybe the fault doesn't lay with their perception.

Out of +rep. And she's right, it's the job of the speaker to make sure the audience understands.

Then you were purposefully replying to Napiform in a way that didn't answer her point, and was deliberately deceptive. Shocker.

Such is life with Kami.

Not at all. If you read our conversation, you'd realize that napiform was arguing towards survival as an end, which is the basic notion that I am refuting. I am saying pleasure is the only end. Survival is another means to it.

It isn't a direct contradiction at all. They want to survive, but it is to survive BECAUSE it brings them pleasure. Pleasure itself is the only thing with intrinsic value. Survival isn't. People would not seek life if they did not enjoy it.

Yes they would. Because they have a natural instinct to survive.

I gave the definition of intrinsic value. I gave the definition of pleasure.

Do people not pursue pleasure for its own sake?

Yes, but not when I'm in danger and trying to survive.

Make sure you include some sadomasochists in your sample.

(I really don't see how you can say that "pleasure is pleasurable because it's pleasurable" isn't a circular argument).

Still out of +rep.

Ok, now that I'm caught up again...

What about when you're in a situation where you feel like you're dying, only have two options to go for, and neither of them bring you pleasure. What other choices are there than to survive? You aren't deriving pleasure from any choice you make.

[8143FF763271]

Out of +rep. And she's right, it's the job of the speaker to make sure the audience understands.


Such is life with Kami.


Yes they would. Because they have a natural instinct to survive.


Yes, but not when I'm in danger and trying to survive.


Still out of +rep.

Ok, now that I'm caught up again...

What about when you're in a situation where you feel like you're dying, only have two options to go for, and neither of them bring you pleasure. What other choices are there than to survive? You aren't deriving pleasure from any choice you make.

I feel like sweeney got to a point where he was (at least) following my train of thought. You're still looking at survival as teleological. *facepalm*

Dude, if we had an instinct to survive we wouldn't smoke cigarettes. We wouldn't eat bad foods, we wouldn't engage in risky behaviours, we wouldn't do any of the things we do on a daily basis that threaten our survival. If you're in a situation where you're dying and you have two options, you do what everyone does when they have two options: YOU ANALYZE THEM AND PICK. Some terminal patients may think they will get better and enjoy life again, they choose to survive. Others, however, don't think life will get much better and don't want to put up with the pain so they choose death. We don't have a fucking reason to live life other than enjoying it. No one does things just TO SURVIVE because SURVIVING! People do things because they make them feel good.

It's fucking hilarious that you'd go so far as to say "SUCH IS LIFE WITH KAMI" when you just reaffirmed what I said about you- that you're arguing survival is an end.

Edited by kami12, 20 August 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[NapisaurusRex]

I feel like sweeney got to a point where he was (at least) following my train of thought. You're still looking at survival as teleological. *facepalm*

Dude, if we had an instinct to survive we wouldn't smoke cigarettes. We wouldn't eat bad foods, we wouldn't engage in risky behaviours, we wouldn't do any of the things we do on a daily basis that threaten our survival. If you're in a situation where you're dying and you have two options, you do what everyone does when they have two options: YOU ANALYZE THEM AND PICK. Some terminal patients may think they will get better and enjoy life again, they choose to survive. Others, however, don't think life will get much better and don't want to put up with the pain so they choose death. We don't have a fucking reason to live life other than enjoying it. No one does things just TO SURVIVE because SURVIVING! People do things because they make them feel good.

It's fucking hilarious that you'd go so far as to say "SUCH IS LIFE WITH KAMI" when you just reaffirmed what I said about you- that you're arguing survival is an end.

Except what you're missing is all of those things are addictive behaviors. How many people would smoke if it wasn't addictive? How many people are addicted to adrenaline rushes? Trans-fat, sugar, blahblahblah. If they weren't addictive, wouldn't the desire to survive outweigh that action?

I didn't say when you're dying. I said when you feel like you're dying. There is a big difference. Obviously if death is inevitable it would be more subjective.

Edited by Napiform, 20 August 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[8143FF763271]

Except what you're missing is all of those things are addictive behaviors. How many people would smoke if it wasn't addictive? How many people are addicted to adrenaline rushes? Trans-fat, sugar, blahblahblah. If they weren't addictive, wouldn't the desire to survive outweigh that action?

I didn't say when you're dying. I said when you feel like you're dying. There is a big difference. Obviously if death is inevitable it would be more subjective.

You're not making a point. Things are addictive because they feel good. If I stop eating big macs, I will miss them because I enjoy them. If someone tells me that I will die in 40 years for eating them, I won't care. What does the fact that you want to label them as addictive have to do with anything? It's the same principle whether you do that or not. You're picking pleasure over survival. Labeling anything that we do that feels good and isn't healthy as "addictive" isn't a point. It's a moral position based on the assumption that living is more important than enjoyment.

It doesn't make a difference on your second argument either. If you feel like you're dying and you have two options, you'll do the same fucking thing I suggested: See what's the option that's going to please you the most.

[NapisaurusRex]

You're not making a point. Things are addictive because they feel good. If I stop eating big macs, I will miss them because I enjoy them. If someone tells me that I will die in 40 years for eating them, I won't care. What does the fact that you want to label them as addictive have to do with anything? It's the same principle whether you do that or not. You're picking pleasure over survival. Labeling anything that we do that feels good and isn't healthy as "addictive" isn't a point. It's a moral position based on the assumption that living is more important than enjoyment.

It's not 'moral', it's chemical. Humans can't control chemical addictions willy-nilly without building up tolerance or choosing to ignore what will bring them temporary pleasure.

It doesn't make a difference on your second argument either. If you feel like you're dying and you have two options, you'll do the same fucking thing I suggested: See what's the option that's going to please you the most.

And if neither of them do? You'll naturally pick what makes you survive.

Which ties right into the previous point you made. Have you ever done drugs?

[8143FF763271]

It's not 'moral', it's chemical. Humans can't control chemical addictions willy-nilly without building up tolerance or choosing to ignore what will bring them temporary pleasure.


And if neither of them do? You'll naturally pick what makes you survive.

Which ties right into the previous point you made. Have you ever done drugs?

Everything is chemical. Developing a "physical addiction" to something means that we feel really bad when we don't have it. People give up physical addictions for a reason, they think they will be more unpleasant in the long run. I ask again (and again and again): Why would we live life if we didn't enjoy it? A lot of people can stop eating food that's unhealthy for them. They simply choose not to. Are you going to call good tasting food an addiction just because they're unhealthy and people eat them anyway? Have you considered the fact that people don't care that much about their health if they're not going to enjoy being healthy?

You won't naturally pick what makes you survive unless survival represents potential pleasure. If you were to be miserable for the rest of your life, you'd surely pick death. If both are likely and you simply don't care, you'd innie miny moe it.

Edited by kami12, 20 August 2012 - 06:20 PM.

[NapisaurusRex]

Everything is chemical. Developing a "physical addiction" to something means that we feel really bad when we don't have it. People give up physical addictions for a reason, they think they will be more unpleasant in the long run. I ask again (and again and again): Why would we live life if we didn't enjoy it? A lot of people can stop eating food that's unhealthy for them. They simply choose not to. Are you going to call good tasting food an addiction just because they're unhealthy and people eat them anyway? Have you considered the fact that people don't care that much about their health if they're not going to enjoy being healthy?

You won't naturally pick what makes you survive unless survival represents potential pleasure. If you were to be miserable for the rest of your life, you'd surely pick death. If both are likely and you simply don't care, you'd innie miny moe it.

It's an addiction because the substances that make them up are addictive. Some people care, but are uneducated about what's healthy. Other people believe they can't afford healthier foods. You ask again, and I keep answering you. Again.

Anyway, I'm out. You can't expect me to answer anymore of your questions if you're going to pick and choose what to answer.

[8143FF763271]

It's an addiction because the substances that make them up are addictive. Some people care, but are uneducated about what's healthy. Other people believe they can't afford healthier foods. You ask again, and I keep answering you. Again.

Anyway, I'm out. You can't expect me to answer anymore of your questions if you're going to pick and choose what to answer.

Did you even read the articles you linked me to? "These findings confirm what we and many others have suspected that over-consumption of high pleasurable food triggers addiction-like neuroadaptive responses in brain reward circuitries". Are you reading what they are saying? That eating these food provokes PLEASURE and that's why we look forward to them despite of their health risks? How do you think addictions fucking work? Do you think we get possessed by spirits and gravitate towards the next bag of coke? No, we feel like shit when we don't have it and we feel good when we do. We call it addiction because we often have to put up with more pain from it (like the pain of being a fat ass or sucking dick for crack or tweaking) than we get pleasure from it.

I eat bad foods because they taste good. I know a lot of people who eat pizza because it tastes good and are fully aware of the fact that it's unhealthy. Guess what? ThEy DoN'T cArE because it tastes really fucking good.

*facepalm*.

Edited by kami12, 20 August 2012 - 06:35 PM.