ncephalizedToday at 5:07 PM
what the hell do you think I'm doing?

this implies doing something greater than "typing bullshit on social media"

"until that point, im working with the tools of the state" -- you 2 minutes ago

lol

unrelated

nice

hahahahaha

truly, you have a dizzying intellect

(do we have any Princess Bride emojis?)

yea for someone like you, with an IQ of 115, i bet it seems that way

theeeere it comes

/iamverysmart

when you try to insult my intellect, you realise you're implictly claiming that you have a higher intellect?

yes

*so you were the one who first flexed*

/iamverysmart

<:PepoThink:545123948833144833>

this is fun

you understand that was in specific reference to your very obvious lack of self awareness in a specific statement, whose parallel to the behavior you were calling out in me is entirely blatant?

so you are trying to justify /iamverysmart statements?

but I don't mind being a hypocrite if it's a chance to make a Princess Bride reference, anyway

that's always worthwhile

(ps there is no equivalence)

i love when people do that false equivalency thing

if you don't see it, you don't. That's fine.

no, i see what you tried to equivocate. you dont see the counterargument to why its not equivalent

and thats to be expected tbh

"I love it when people do the false equivalency thing" -guy who made comparison between the idea of natural rights and Mao's "great leap forward"

Ah, this has been entertaining but it is past bedtime. Gotta get up in the morning and do some real shit.

Green, you gonna finish that essay soon?

don't go over the 2000 char limit

natural rights are premises which have no legalistic recognition -> theyre abstract and arent enforced
mao's policies were *enforced* mechanisms *based on an abstract ideology*. i didnt make a comparison between these two, i said when you *enforce* ideologies without references to its consequences, you get terrible consequences. Natural rights need not ignore consequences -> you can draw up natural rights *based off consequences*,, but in the context of protected classes, *the right to discriminate against them* *will* have negative consequences, *as we have seen all throughout history*. that was the comparison i was making -> both mao and uncephalised ignored consequences in designing their "rights" . now, uncephalised has retracted that claim, so its *not equivalent*, but if he wanted to keep his claim in play, it would be the same method of thinking

uncephalized, you gonna finish that essay soon?
don't go over the 2000 char limit

1) I never said I ignored consequences, you said that about me, so it's unfair to say I retracted a claim I never made. 2) I'll reassert that accepting a consequence is not ignoring it, it's compromising.

you made a claim that a principle was more important than the consequences

then you retracted it in "clearing it up"

yes, I still believe that means are in general important. You applied a label, which I agree with in a half-hearted way because I feel it's too binary.

Anyway, nice to meet you, @Green Syndicalism

I need to sleep.

Good night, all.

Interesting discussion, but I have a couple of questions about the consequences: what is the criteria for a