To treat philosophers a group as an individual capable of wanting a single thing across all is an over generalization in fact treating an individual as an individual itself is a over generalization since we consistently hold conflicting desires but before we get into that we must first ask what a “desire” itself is but that comes with the problem of what the “self” is in itself but we can’t explain that until we dive into what we are talking about when we say In but that would be semantics which I will now define in the following 500 book thesis on redefining the English language so it supports my esoteric politically biased view point because my grade school bully called me stupid when I was five.
PhDebaters
Submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/f9fff057-8a64-4a4d-9f53-9d6d6b1c4053.jpeg
Comments
stupidcasey@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Dragonstaff@leminal.space 1 year ago
My esteemed colleague’s first 300 books are riveting, but at that point the argument falls apart. They fail to account for the Herman reversal: “I know you are, but what am I” (Herman et al,1985). Amusing, but hardly a work of serious scholarship.
stupidcasey@lemmy.world 1 year ago
YOU’RE STUPID!!!(++!((+((
EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I dunno. Sounds like you like discussing things.
neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Degenerates only want one thing and it’s disgusting fucking.
tetris11@feddit.uk 1 year ago
absolutists want one thing and one thing only, and it’s fucking annoying
kibiz0r@midwest.social 1 year ago
Okay here goes: Is it morally permissible to have sex with a robot? Assume that it’s so lifelike that you can’t distinguish it from a human, except for the fact that it can’t refuse.
thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz 1 year ago
joyjoy@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
What if the sentient robot is programmed to have sex with me and if it’s denied sex it caused it great distress?
kibiz0r@midwest.social 1 year ago
What about the Kantian view?
Kant believed that animals were not sentient in the same way as man and therefore did not deserve the same moral valuation. Yet, he also believed that we should not harm animals, because if you harm a creature that you can feel empathy for, you’re damaging your innate ability to care about others.
Should a similar argument apply to sex robots?
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
How indistinguishable are we talking? Can it get pregnant? Can it get STDs? Can it’s parents be ashamed of their offspring’s choices in men?
Also, It is probably morally permissible, but only if you feel disgusted and guilty with yourself after post-nut clarity. Walk of shame for everyone.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 year ago
“I’m just asking questions!”
CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
If we base the morality on whether there would be any harm done to any side, given everything goes as intended, and whether they are capable to communicate (even pretended) pleasure, and consent, then fuck yes, slay
culpritus@hexbear.net 1 year ago
muhyb@programming.dev 1 year ago
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
He said have sex with, not date.
vardogor@mander.xyz 1 year ago
a good presentation on that topic: youtu.be/XQcNYb3DydA
logicbomb@lemmy.world 1 year ago
truth
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Is it? 🤔
kibiz0r@midwest.social 1 year ago
What is truth?
KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
trvthnvke, if you will
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 1 year ago
Horny philosophers want only two things
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Inside you are two philosophers.
you are airtight.
Una@europe.pub 1 year ago
Why?
culpritus@hexbear.net 1 year ago
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”
kibiz0r@midwest.social 1 year ago
“Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.”
dmention7@midwest.social 1 year ago
Sex therapists only want one thing and it’s discussing fucking.