Max Karson / mrgirl - Pedophile pseudo-intellectual, master/suicide baiter, school shooter white-knight

[Historical Strelkov]

Karson is a "harm principle" adherent and would probably argue that it's harmful, and therefore, it's bad. Although, in a debate with an Islamic ethicist, Karson admitted that bestiality wasn't considered immoral under his worldview and shouldn't necessarily be criminalized.

I am so glad this max thing was rejected by the world.

 

[Ogreboy]

Karson is a "harm principle" adherent and would probably argue that it's harmful, and therefore, it's bad. Although, in a debate with an Islamic ethicist, Karson admitted that bestiality wasn't considered immoral under his worldview and shouldn't necessarily be criminalized.

I was thinking more on a axiomatic level. What his standard is for morality. Because he doesn't have a objective standard for morality, it will ultimately always result in relativism. He entire moral system is build on nothing but "preferences" which mean that, all people have to do to counter his positions on any moral claim he makes, is to just assert that it is their own preference to not follow his preferences and follow your own preferences instead.

 

[Harm]

I was thinking more on a axiomatic level. What his standard is for morality. Because he doesn't have a objective standard for morality, it will ultimately always result in relativism. He entire moral system is build on nothing but "preferences" which mean that, all people have to do to counter his positions on any moral claim he makes, is to just assert that it is their own preference to not follow his preferences and follow your own preferences instead.

Yeah, and you're absolutely right. After all, the "harm principle" itself is a matter of preference. "I prefer things which don't exceed a non-specific threshold for harm!" Okay, and if my threshold differs, then which threshold wins? If it isn't mine, then I will simply harm you until you acquiesce. Might is right, after all.

Morals are seemingly impossible for humans to delineate without either appealing to a higher power, such as Christian ethicists pointing towards "because God said so" or some nebulous "natural order," or appealing to mere preference. Of course, if it's all preference, then one preference can not be superior in and of itself unless we somehow designate one human as the paragon of morality whose preferences become supreme, in turn deifying them above all others as a higher power.

The only real alternative I've yet to encounter would be the Aleister Crowley mantra of "do what thou wilt," which is untenable if you want a structured, organized society which will endure and prosper. It's great if you want to degenerate into debauchery and destroy what others built, though.

 

[AnOminous]

He entire moral system is build on nothing but "preferences" which mean that, all people have to do to counter his positions on any moral claim he makes, is to just assert that it is their own preference to not follow his preferences and follow your own preferences instead.

In theory, I don't have a problem with preference utilitarianism, but like all ethical philosophies, it can take a degenerate, broken form that leads to monstrosities. For instance, a disgusting creep like this pedophile simply refuses to acknowledge that all preferences are not created equal.

Some are of positive value, for example, if someone has a preference for helping others. Some are of neutral value, such as choice of hairstyle. In neither of those cases is there a countervailing societal interest that would justify unnecessarily restricting those kinds of preferences. However, in other cases, a preference is either worthless to society or actively harmful, such as the preferences of serial killers to murder people or of pedophiles like Karson to molest children and fuck animals.

And indeed, arguably those preferences are so inherently harmful that someone should be ostracized from society, confined, or worse for even having them, much less acting on them.

 

[Ogreboy]

Some are of positive value, for example, if someone has a preference for helping others. Some are of neutral value, such as choice of hairstyle. In neither of those cases is there a countervailing societal interest that would justify unnecessarily restricting those kinds of preferences. However, in other cases, a preference is either worthless to society or actively harmful, such as the preferences of serial killers to murder people or of pedophiles like Karson to molest children and fuck animals.

The problem is that it is a value judgement, meaning that it's up to the individual to determine what has more value then another. Which goes back to preferences. It is impossible to measure, because it's all based on people's emotions and how they "feel."

That's why when someone says "positive value," that is a very loaded phrase. Because what do they mean by "value" and what do they mean by "positive." What standard are they using to determine what is positive and what is negative. And it doesn't even cover the pre-sup stuff. Like how you even know things have value, or how you have a concept of "meaning" in a strictly materialistic world. The word "positive" implies a sense of "meaning" to an action or out-come. And they have no standard or justification for those concepts they're appealing to. And if they deny metaphysics. They are refuting themselves. Because you would have to appeal to transcendental categories / metaphysical concepts in order to deny them . Which will take you back to preferences again.

"I think it's wrong to molest children, because I don't like it! "

"I think it's good to molest children, because I like it "

Same justification, same rational.

 

[Accord]

Anyone who talks about "preferences" in regard to morality is immediately categorized as a solipsist (and often Narcissist) in my mind. Ethics is fundamentally about how what you do impacts others, not trivial personal "preferences" like saying "I prefer Coke over Pepsi." It exposes a high degree of self-centeredness which means they're likely to have a heavy stake in anything they defend in conversation. That is to say, if someone doesn't acknowledge and justify doing something with regards to the consequences FOR OTHERS, then it's often simply a pseudo-philosophical coverup of what boils down to "this is how I personally feel about it and if you don't like it then get bent." That's why I'm immediately skeptical of the "personal preferences" of anyone who does shit like justify CP or bestiality.

 

[Gog of Magog]

Max had to chime in on the "napping with your dad" discourse..

https://archive.ph/D6lji

This was in response to this tweet

https://archive.ph/XrWbo

 

[Harm]

"Why can't people just respect healthy boundaries? Now get in here, Shaelin, I need to scream at you until you cry and then put it online so strangers will give me money!"

 

[FarmEnjoyer]

Can someone that actually watches this retard explain his black hole theory bullshit?

 

[Harm]

Can someone that actually watches this retard explain his black hole theory bullshit?

In short, the theory is all of our observable universe is itself within a black hole. This supposedly "solves" or otherwise answers all conundrums in astrophysics.