Message from @RyeNorth
Discord ID: 465744319253577728
Be a nihilist
What're you going to do tape it to a roomba?
i can use it
i just dont
"shut anarcho-primitivist"? i dont even know what that is supposed to mean
He was responding to my joke
i was telling the an-prim to shut up as a joke
never heard of that before... and who is that?
anarcho-primitivists believe all tech is evil and should be destroyed, and it was Schedrevka but as a joke
i see... so many anarcho-[fill in blank] .... too many to keep track of apparently
Yeah, they basically believe that all our issues stem from us straying from nature, and that we should return to our roots
lemme pull up the list
And many take it to a really far level\
lol
LOL at the Dem
Like to the point that I've seen people seriously argue that glasses shouldn't exist and that it's fine if people with poor vision died as a result of it because it would improve the gene pool
The joke is
the joke is politics
Thus, violating the NAP.
in some cases that is true... because you can wrecklessly intervene such as in car accidents where you may potentially inflict further damage on someone with broken bone, severe internal injuries, etc
not necessarily violating the NAP tho, bcuz a lot of it stems from intent
The trolley test is essentially a 'Kobayashi Maru'
There's not a scenario that is a 'win'.
yeah
And in the wise words of Rush, If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
because aggression means essentially initiation of force will malicious or threatening intent as far as im concerned
The tricky part to having a principle such as the NAP as the sole standard though is that any moral pillar can be perverted to become something it's not meant to be.
ya but he cannot be held responsible for doing nothing ... especially if hes like hyperventalating from the situation and stuf.... he could simple just be frozen in fear and shock ... wouldnt be able to blame him for not doing something either if it wasnt his responsibility to begin with
well itd be hell of a lot better and more clear and definitive than some foggy nebular, fluffly social contract
I mean, in a way, yes.
That's the joke. He cannot be held responsible for doing nothing, so he chooses to do nothing because otherwise he could be held accountable
social contract can mean literally anything.... NAP means non-aggression principle
It *is* a joke afterall
The NAP IS a social contract.
If it's an order by which people live and die, whether they've agreed to it or not, it's a social contract.
i could agree with that.... but it could be enforced more easily and also actually be codified into the foundations of actual valid, explicit social contracts too
so we can replace the foggy idea of a social contract with the NAP ... and then current contract laws/conventions, explicit legal contracts, etc are layered on top of that
What's so foggy about the current paradigm?