balderdash9

joined 1 year ago
[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago

This is great stuff, thanks!

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks a lot for the suggestions!

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

This comment alone is making me interested in Greek mythology. I'd like to know more. Any reading suggestions toward that end?

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

inb4: the God of the Abrahamic religions hurr durr

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 118 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Water? You mean that stuff that goes in toilets?

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

After years of this sentiment being passed around online it's clear that shit isn't going to happen until we have a military draft/Vietnam War level incident. The pot is boiling too slowly for most of us to jump out. And even if we do try to organize a strike or civil disobedience, the government has gotten good at assasinating leaders that threaten the system.

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are a lot of claims here, but I'm going to focus on one in particular. I don't think we have any moral obligation to reach our potential as a "creator race". Taking into account your initial starting point, consider the following argument:

  1. Either intelligent beings were created or intelligent beings arose by chance (at least once).
  2. If intelligent beings were created, then there is already a creator.
  3. If intelligent beings arose by chance once, then it is possible for intelligent life to arise by chance again.
  4. Therefore, either there is already a creator of intelligent life or intelligent life can arise by chance again.

If this argument is sound, then the possibility of intelligent life does not depend on us. To me, this weakens any suggestion that we are morally obligated to fulfill our intellectual potential.

Perhaps one could object to my argument above on utilitarian grounds. If we can create more intelligent life than already exists, then we will be increasing the total amount of good in the universe. We are morally obligated to increase the good in the world (however "good" is defined) and so we are morally obligated to create intelligent beings. But this is a non sequitur. It isn't clear that the creation of more intelligent beings will result in more happiness than misery. In which case, on a utilitarian analysis, it could turn out that we are morally prohibited from creating intelligent beings.

I know this isn't the crux of your post, but I wanted to engage philosophically since posts in this community often go unanswered.

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 69 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 month ago

Priorities lmao

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't understand. If a mod from memes.world bans me from a meme community, I can still comment on memes.world from another instance? Or are you saying just go to another community on another instance that has the same kind of content? Because if it's the latter then Lemmy's userbase number problem comes into play. Even popular subjects only have like one or two big communities.

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Kinda feels like the site isn't developing much at all tbh. I know mods have been asking for more tools for a while now

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

better mods?

 
 
 

note the oldest at the wheel

 
 
 
 
3
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world
 

Though I'm not sure this holds true for dyslexics.

edit: Apparently it's more complicated than the example claims.

1
Bygone Era (lemmy.zip)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/memes@lemmy.world
 
 
 
 
view more: next ›