Who is more retarded here. The judge that thinks this guy is a threat to public safety or the guy that thought live streaming with donations on like that was a good idea.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/718/789/3e0.jpg

https://i.imgflip.com/zzvg2.jpg

Not to mention he walks around in his, as he calls it, muslim suit(Turban with the white shirt and pants, I can NOT remember it's actual name. Sorry!) as he does it.

Plus the guy comes off as very sketchy and nervous and laughing and obsessively on his phone to people too.

the guy was a threat to public safety, he nearly got himself shot.

Shot for what? Walking down the fucking street? When US cops are so incompetent they shoot people for listening to music in their garage, everyone is a threat to public safety using their logic.

Carrying out a bomb threat.

How the fuck was that a credible bomb threat? And since when is that "almost getting yourself shot."

If a cop shot him for that, when clearly wasn't a threat, that cop is just an incompetent moron.

The cop is the threat to public safety in this scenario, which is the norm for most of them because they have shit-tier aim and like firing into crowds of people.

Have you not been paying attention?

There's a school or college shooting every other day in the US. Walking into a classroom, being a creepy weirdo then having a bomb detonator announcement play is a credible threat. Did you not see everyone fleeing for their lives?

The cop could have ended up shooting someone because of the stupid situation that guy caused. That's a threat to public safety. The guy can't just claim he has no responsibility for anything when he knew exactly what he was doing, it was a business for him.

You still aren't following me. If a cop shot at this guy for walking down the street, with no weapons at all, the cop is the threat to public safety, not the suspect.

The cop is the one using force when force isn't required. You're basically trying to say that American police incompetence is a threat to public safety, and rather than blame them, you want to blame the unarmed guy walking down the street.

Force was required, this stupid fucker made a bomb threat and emptied out a college building. The cop did well to restrain himself from shooting the fucking idiot given the current climate.

You have to be literally a retarded person. If someone makes a bomb threat, and that person is unarmed and clearly walking down the street, what in the world makes you think the police has any right to shoot him, or even consider shooting him?

This seems to be a real problem in America, where the uneducated are the impression the police have the right to shoot you if you break the law, even if you're unarmed and pose no threat.

Last time I checked, the punishment for making a bomb threat is not the death penalty. No matter what the greasy pigs or their defenders think.

If someone makes a bomb threat, and that person is unarmed and clearly walking down the street, what in the world makes you think the police have any right to shoot him, or even consider shooting him?

Oh I don't know, maybe because they made a fucking bomb threat . Don't tell me you think making bomb threats, real or fake, is freedom of speech.

What aren't you following here? I want you to go find me where in any law it says making a bomb threat carries the death penalty?

Where did I say he should be free to walk away? There are multiple mongoloids here trying to claim the police are within their rights to shoot an unarmed man for making a bomb threat.

Sure, a quick Wikipedia search brings up..

A bomb threat or bomb scare is a threat, usually verbal or written, to detonate an explosive or incendiary device to cause property damage, death or injuries, whether or not such a device actually exists. ... Authorities protect these communities by assuming all bomb threats are with bad intent.

And then a quick look at Washington States law RCW 9.61.160

(2) It shall not be a defense to any prosecution under this section that the threatened bombing or injury was a hoax.

So right off the bat officers acted within the law. They treated the situation as real, they didn't shoot him. Nor am I advocating for him to be shot. The dumbass streamer has no defense.

Don't make bomb threats for the sake of a prank.

I'm just fucking baffled here. Like the rate at which I encounter either seriously poor reading comprehension or outright illiteracy on this sub is fucking insane.

I'm going to show you how illiterate you are.

Copy paste where, at any point in this entire argument I said he didn't violate the law, or shouldn't have been arrested.

goddamn pizzashill, i love you

this stupid fucker made a bomb threat

the guy who posted the audio made the bomb threat. ISIS poseidon only carried the speakers.

This is such a bullshit, 'just a prank' loophole.

The guy is responsible for a bomb threat he made in an attempt to profit from YouTube views. Tech workarounds are such shitty transparent loopholes.

the donator's loophole to avoid responsibility?

the donator is the one who made the bomb threat through tech workarounds.

It's pretty obvious what this guys channel is setup to do.

It's his responsibility. He has created and profited from this setup.

'but, but mah technology'

Nah mate.

It's pretty obvious what twitter is setup to do.

terrorism recruitment obviously.

he should have been shot on principle

Yes, keep licking the boots of those borderline downs syndrome goons that think they have the right to murder anyone that so much as looks at them funny.

why are you giving cops a stinkeye in the first place you downy shart

Because they're out of control apes that are above the law and can get away with anything because cities decided to give them absurd rights in place of more money.

If you think the current policing situation in this country is in any way acceptable I suspect you haven't looked into police unions.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-unions/

Some of the most absurd:

A majority of the contracts call for departments to erase disciplinary records, some after just six months, making it difficult to fire officers with a history of abuses. In 18 cities, suspensions are erased in three years or less. In Anchorage, Alaska, suspensions, demotions and disciplinary transfers are removed after two years.

1

Nearly half of the contracts allow officers accused of misconduct to access the entire investigative file – including witness statements, GPS readouts, photos, videos and notes from the internal investigation – before being interrogated.

2

Twenty cities, including San Antonio, allow officers accused of misconduct to forfeit sick leave or holiday and vacation time rather than serve suspensions.

3

Eighteen cities require an officer’s written consent before the department publicly releases documents involving prior discipline or internal investigations.

The entire system is set up to protect bad cops. It's set up to keep abusive fucking criminals on the job.

My dad can beat up your dad

the $5 donator made the bomb threat, ISIS poseidon only carried the loud speakers.

put the gun down bro

who is more retarded here

you

You're seriously defending this asshole

Determinism (school of thought claiming free will doesn't exist) is a position that's been supported by many, many serious philosophers and scientists, especially since we've been able to observe the physical processes going on in the brain. You're disagreeing with Einstein here, among a lot of other smart and well-respected thinkers, it might be worth doing a bit of reading before posting your opinion so confidently. I know it's fun to judge other people morally and feel above them, but it doesn't make a lot of logical sense unless you believe in souls or something like that.

/u/zintoz and /u/FVCKING_WORMS_2, have you considered the fact that if free will doesn't exist then it's not just for criminals, the rest of us also don't really have a choice and are not morally responsible for making and enforcing laws that punish criminals?

Yes, I have considered everything you have said in this comment.

/u/zintoz and /u/FVCKING_WORMS_2, have you considered the fact that if free will doesn't exist then it's not just for criminals, the rest of us also don't really have a choice and are not morally responsible for making and enforcing laws that punish criminals?

No, we are not morally responsible for anything, but it's in our best interest to do that, so we do it.

Also, that if it was a physical process in someone's brain that caused them to do something, it's entirely fair to punish that physical process?

Yes, which is why I said in one of my replies to someone that I would be fine with the guy being punished, providing that there is actual evidence for punishment being an effective deterrent for other people for a crime like this.

If there wasn't evidence, then I would want him to just do some sort of community service at a PTSD center. You can either punish the physical process or you can rehabilitate it, and I think rehabilitating it is much fairer (providing the benefits of punishing the person don't outweigh the benefits of rehabilitating them).

but it's in our best interest to lock people up who are a threat to the community

You are actually a philosophy 101 tier retard. If you accept the premise that all action is determined, then locking someone up for doing anything is like locking someone up for breathing. How can an individual be morally accountable for an action they had no control over (you know, the entire thesis of your autistic screed on things you don't have any idea about)?

Btw, determinism is a minority position in philosophy. And making an appeal to einstein is joke.

I'm not saying that moral responsibility should be a prerequisite for imprisonment. I'm saying that people should be locked up if there is evidence that they will harm other people.

It's a lesser of two evils type situation.

if there is evidence that the harm they will do to others will outweigh the harm done to them by locking them up.

There is enough evidence in your last two comment to lock you up for life in solitary confinement so that you can't reproduce because the chance that your offsprings might be as retarded as you would be a harm to others.

Congratulations. Calling someone else retarded while simultaneously being unable to articulate a logical comment as to why you disagree with them.

I really don't expect much from the typical /r/Drama user, but this is a new level of retarded.

You're such a weak individual that you project that weakness onto literally everyone in the world.

I would say those who can't accept reality are much weaker, but that's just my opinion :)

I understand why you want to disagree with me because the whole alt right ideology is based on demonizing and oppressing other people, but please try to put your emotions to the side and think logically about it.

that's just my opinion

Are you sure that's not just a product of your genetics and environment?

I never said it wasn't.

I'm saying that they should be locked up if there is evidence that the harm from the crimes they will if released will outweigh the harm done to them by locking them up.

But is it our fault if we don't do that supposedly reasonable thing, since we don't have a free will after all? 🤔🤔🤔🤔

Nobody is morally responsible for anything, if that's what you're asking.

So when you tell me that I should change the way we punish crimes (assuming that I'm in charge), how exactly you're saying that I'm morally compelled to do that, or otherwise compelled? If I don't have the Freedom of Will then I can laugh at your demands and continue to punish criminals, since I myself can't be held morally responsible for doing that.

I'm trying to change the way you think. I am part of your environment. Yes, you could laugh at my suggestions and continue to do things that are unfair, but you appear to be at least moderately reasonable with the capacity to feel empathy, and therefore I believe that you won't do that.

Yes, you could laugh at my suggestions and continue to do things that are unfair

That's telling me that my current state of mind is morally reprehensible and that I'd better change that to a more moral state of mind.

If we have it established that nobody is morally responsible for their actions then I'm not sure what you're trying to blackmail me with. Let's punish criminals severely, I can vote for that and be like that's OK, you can't say it's my fault, I'm entirely faultless if I don't have the freedom of will. If I don't feel empathy for criminals that's OK, that's just how I am.

Look, the reason I can run circles around you and troll you with contradictions is because your concept of the Freedom of Will is nonsensical and is based on a contradiction (the Will should somehow be free from itself deterministically Willing things). From a contradiction in the axioms any number of hilarious contradictions can be derived.

I've already linked https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NEeW7eSXThPz7o4Ne/thou-art-physics, maybe this time you should read it.

The fact is that what I'm saying is going over your head. It has nothing to do with me contradicting myself.

Yes, you can be morally reprehensible, but that doesn't mean that you are morally responsible for being morally reprehensible.

Let's punish criminals severely, I can vote for that and be like that's OK, you can't say it's my fault

Your desire to do that would be because you lack what people who would not think that way have, but you had no choice in being that way.

You can't run circles around me. You are literally running circles around yourself and with every reply your inability to understand what I'm actually saying becomes more apparent.

I don't need to read that because everything I have said is logically correct and scientifically accurate.

Yes, you can be morally reprehensible, but that doesn't mean that you are morally responsible for being morally reprehensible.

But how do you try to get me less morally reprehensible if there's nothing you can use as a leverage? When saying that someone is "morally reprehensible" has literally zero moral weight behind it?

I don't need to read that because everything I have said is logically correct and scientifically accurate.

LMAO. And you believe that you're open-minded and stuff. Again, in case I managed to shame you in reading it: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NEeW7eSXThPz7o4Ne/thou-art-physics

This is what I can use as leverage:

The people who you treat cruelly are capable of feeling emotion, and thus going out of your way to treat them cruelly will make them upset.

Of course, this won't work on someone who lacks empathy, but for someone who doesn't, it should make you reconsider how you treat people.

This is what I can use as leverage:

The people who you treat cruelly are capable of feeling emotion.

Yeah, the best in life is to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women! Them feeling those emotions as you do it is actually required to enjoy the thing fully.

What you're trying to do here is to ground morality, to prove that there's an objective "good" and we should strive to attain it. Better people tried and failed.

But what makes you different is that you begin your attempt at grounding morality by declaring that you can't possibly do that because morals don't exist. That you can't possibly call Gheghis Khan morally wrong with any weight behind it because he was a product of his age, blah blah blah.

This self-defeating mayo nonsense is what I'm making fun when I'm making fun of you. It's not just that you set out to solve the probably most important unsolved problem in ethics like it would be easy peasy, it's that you guaranteed that you can't solve it from the get go by declaring that morals aren't real.

All you are saying is that if I already agree with you on what's moral (which isn't real, but I agree because I'm an animal with animal drives like empathy) then, uh, I agree with you. If not then not, white flag shown.

He was morally wrong to people who feel empathy (e.g. normal people), but not morally responsible for being morally wrong. A psychopath, or someone who suffered from some other kind of antisocial personality disorder, would probably admire what he did.

You don't have to be morally responsible for anything in order to be locked up, you just have to be a threat to society. People who plead insanity still have to stay in a mental hospital for the safety of themselves and others, the principle of what he's saying is no different.

And of course it's a minority position, philosophers are still humans, they don't want to believe they don't have control over their own lives. Btw I'm not saying that Einstein believing something makes it the truth, that was an attempt to give some legitimacy to a position that clearly isn't taken seriously by most people here.

indeterminism does not create free will either.

the rest of us also don't really have a choice and are not morally responsible for making and enforcing laws that punish criminals

this also extends to rewards.

Desert (philosophy) is a stupid concept.

Also, making laws and enforcing them is a deterrent even in a determinostic view. The people who think we shouldn't hold people accountable because we don't have free will are absolute dips.

making laws and enforcing them is a deterrent even in a deterministic view

exactly.

also, indeterminism does not create free will.

In fact free will requires at least some amount of determinism, so that you can have your principles and then act according to them. And the less deterministic you are when doing that, the less like an exercise of the free will that feels.

It's only if you believe in souls or something there's some contradiction. And also people not recognizing the difference between "outside" determinism (Final Destination style) and the determinism that allows your brain to function. Also, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NEeW7eSXThPz7o4Ne/thou-art-physics.

Never said anything about not making or enforcing laws, I'm only against the egotistical way in which people have to reassure themselves they're superior to "evil" criminals. Just decide what punishment is most beneficial for all parties and administer it without all the self-congratulating bullshit.

I’m definitely better than Arab Andy and you’re definitely not better than Arab Andy. Hope that cleared things up for you.

Epic troll, dude!

I'm only against the egotistical way in which people have to reassure themselves they're superior to "evil" criminals.

Is it their fault though? They were predetermined to be like that by genetics and circumstances, why are you suddenly all indignant?

I'm not indignant towards them, I just think the world would be a much better place without that behavior. I don't think it'll ever go away because it's pretty central to human nature, but I'd like to at least offer the possibility of approaching the world in a different way.

I'm not indignant towards them, I just think the world would be a much better place without that behavior.

Your concept of the world as a better place and desire to make it so is nothing but the product of your genetics and environment. I don't see why anyone else should assign any moral worth to that goal.

I don't think that you've thought your determinist position through. Also this.

Well that post seems pretty similar to how I generally feel about the topic, I don't think there's a ton of disagreement here if those are your opinions on it.

And yeah I don't believe in an objective moral good, I just want to promote what I personally feel because it might change someone's mind, and because it's fun to debate on the Internet.

Based on your dismissive use of the phrase "radical centrism", I assume you know which political side is objectively correct and morally right? Please tell me, I've been dying to know.

Hilarious!

I'm Nazbol

ancient meme, at least the other guy used the updated version of that joke lmao. thanks for playing though, better luck next time!

It's just genetic. Please don't blame me.

It's far, far more likely that your environment (faggy online politics discussions) is responsible. I've been there myself, don't worry, I don't blame you at all sweetie.

What's to blame for the lobe of your brain that's missing?

Oh ok that proves me wrong, I can see that your mental and emotional health has in fact benefited from discussing politics on the internet. Clearly it makes you a well-rounded person with a lot of perspective on life. Your level of aggression on reddit is perfectly normal, I think it's a good idea for you to continue posting online rather than seeking psychological help.

you 2

I'm glad we had this fascinating and productive discussion. I tip my hat to you good sir!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/014/711/neckbeard.jpg

lol you caught my epic mee-mee reference, well played fellow redditor! I guess the narwhal really does bacon at midnight ;)

You take yourself way too seriously.

Sorry, I guess when the whole thread is about laughing at how stupid my opinions are, I'm gonna be inclined to interpret jokes as aggressive. My bad if that was not ur intention ofc.

I just think you're a normal idiot.

Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. If you ever come up with an argument to go along with it, let me know.

Except free will does exist. Even if it didn't, determinism doesn't justify futilism. In fact it has no effect on it, those who would punish would punish and those who won't won't. Remember, no free will. The irony is free will exists and its usually basement dwellers who want to justify theirs and others shitty life choices that day it doesn't.

>free will does exist

what makes you say that?

> those who would punish would punish and those who won't won't

neither I nor the other guy said punishment shouldn't happen, just that moral condemnation is based on false premises and usually an excuse for people to act self-righteous.

>justify theirs and others shitty life choices

nothing is "justified" because that would require an objective moral good. what determinism does is point out that there are unavoidable *reasons* for all material events, and human actions fall into the category of "all material events" unless you have some belief in souls or an interventionist god or whatever.

Because you can make choices, even ones not in your best interest. Considering what you will do is free will. At any point you can choose to stop doing something, most people just don't because they don't want to. That's not determinism that's a choice.

And yes, determinism. Is regularly a part of Liberal faux intellectual circlejerk about crime a nd punishment. If you're not aware of the fact that's fine just don't try and act like it isn't.

And no moral condemnation is to reinforce objective good behaviour and values for the betterment of everyone. That doesn't mean its all justified but not all punishment is self righteous lmfao.

Yes but there is a material reason (consisting of electrochemical processes within the brain) for those choices. You may not be able to perceive the full causal chain of events leading up to someone (even yourself) making a choice, but that doesn't mean that chain of events doesn't exist. Of course it feels like a choice, but what you ultimately decide to do is ultimately a result of your circumstances.

I don't know or care how other people use the basic idea of determinism, my point was that in a deterministic framework, discussing whether or not something is justified is meaningless, since it couldn't have happened any other way.

You don't need condemnation to reinforce values, that can be done perfectly well with punishment alone. Prison is enough of a threat to keep me from breaking the law, I don't need to also be scared that someone will tell me I've been bad or whatever.

Except the fact that you can consider multiple choices and choose them shows that 'electro neuro chemical hurrdurr' is not the prevailing force. You would just do shit and not need to ponder it out.

The pondering and considering is "'electro neuro chemical hurrdurr'" too lol, unless, like I said, you believe in an immaterial soul or something like that. The path of your pondering and considering is predetermined by the circumstances which shaped your consciousness.

Except that's a fallacy. You don't have evidence to that and simply state it is because it makes sense to you and you can't conceive other than that. 'well Computers are deterministic so people's brains must be too becauee they have similar properties'. Except for, you guessed it, the soul my dude.

Well if you actually believe in souls you could've saved us both a lot of time by stating that at the beginning. Not saying that's an invalid belief, but I doubt either of us can prove whether it's correct or not, so we might as well agree to disagree.

I don't believe in souls, souls are proveable its just you have to go through it yourself. So if you're unwilling to do it then obviously by default you're never going to prove it.

Also there is no proof that humans are deterministic. There is just a plausible material model that leads people to think that way despite it not being evidenced.

What do you have to go through yourself? And I agree that there's no proof in the strictest sense of the word, but scientific knowledge like the knowledge we have about the brain has to be taken as legitimate from a pragmatic perspective. In my interpretation at least, our best observations suggest that the brain is entirely subject to material processes. I can never know for certain that that's the case, but at a certain point I have to work from my best guess, because if I wait for certain knowledge I'll never get around to doing anything.

you can make choices,

you think you can make choices, because you can't predict them.

You either believe in cause and effect or you believe in free will, it's really a one or the other. The whole being in the present and not knowing the future is a property of consciousness but ultimately the mechanical processes that got you to a point will decide how you progress from there.

You can have cause and effect in the universes matter and laws and free will in individuals. They're not conflicting things like you're trying to claim they are. A video game is completely deterministic except from the person making choices in the game that then create the deterministic follow on.

are you implying the soul or something is the extra thing not seen in the video game? how exactly does the soul function if not by cause and effect?

I don't know I just know its not bound by the causal nature of this universe because it exists outside or independent of it.

so essentially the soul is magic that somehow gives us free will? if the soul just takes in the inputs, weighs actions and then decides on one then how is it any different from the brain aside from being unphysical? again its not like you'd be able to choose the form of your soul anymore than you'd choose the form of your brain along with the inputs that inform the decision so at what point does free will or choice enter into this?

Well yeah if it were physical it wouldn't be a soul would it. The whole point of the soul is its, to be cliche, like a spark-a piece of creation. It's hard to explain and I'm not articulate or knowledgeable enough to be able to do it.

Free will is free to act and create. Obviously it belies certain characteristics like some people prefer certain things, but that doesn't mean your ability to act on those set dispositions is constrained. I guess it becomes a semantic argument at that point, eg are you really free but you still are free to live outside of what you would want but it wouldn't make sense to. I guess the argument is that the universe around you doesn't solely dictate who you are as if you as a human are just literally a chemical reaction.

So a literal Deus ex machina to somehow in a way you cant articulate or understand create a realm where contrary to everything ever observed things don't follow from other things but instead work in some magic way that you can't articulate or understand but that preserves your belief that you yourself (in this cause and effect world) are going around in the world doing things instead of as you said just a chemical reaction? And that seems reasonable?

Life is essentially a lottery. Nobody has any say in what genes they have or what environmental factors they are exposed to. When we know that these two things, your genes and your environment, are the only factors which effect the neurophysiology brain, and thus the decisions you make, how can you then be justified in feeling anything but pity for someone who does horrible things?

I agree, free will is an illusion. We are just very advanced computers reacting to stimuli. How your brain is wired affects every decision you make.

However we can't just let people do what they want. By punishing retards like this, other people who see this will be less tempted to do this, improving society.

All I'm saying is that there are no things which influence our decision making that are within our control.

I can control whether I lie on the Internet for fun.

You feel like you can control that, but if you consider everything that goes into one's decision making, you will soon realise that choice is an illusion.

Do some reading on the topic and you will eventually realise that everything I'm saying is correct.

I don't expect much from you people here, as after all, your whole presence on this sub is because you enjoy judging others, but please actually read the writings of people who are able to express their thoughts on this matter much more articulately than I am able to, and you will soon realise that your condescension is unjustified.

Do some reading on the topic and you will eventually realise that everything I'm saying is correct.

what reading have you done? Catcher in the Rye?

no you can't.

you think you can, because you can't predict what you're gonna do.

but you can't control it.

All I'm saying is that there are no things that influence our decision making that are within our control.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NEeW7eSXThPz7o4Ne/thou-art-physics

Both of your lines of argumentation is so bizarre. Its like you've unknowingly equivocated the political philosophy of luck egalitarianism and the metaphysical position of reductive materialism.

I don't need to read an intro to metaphysics to know that what I have said is all logically correct. If you disagree with anything I have said, tell me why.

not an argument lol

I agree with determinism, but what you seem to be suggestic we do as a society with that information is to disregard evil and reckless acts. We do not have any choice in what we do in a true sense, but in a practical sense, in the frame of our world and within our ability to process information, that is completely irrelevant.

The fact is that people who do shitty things are likely to do them again, and whether it was their choice or not, we should continue to punish criminal behaviour because it works as yet another environmental factor that deters evil acts in a deterministic and practical view. If the goal here is to maintain and increase well-being, there is absolutely no fucking way that what you are saying makes any sense.

There is certain pieces of information which are not at all useful in the practical world, for example: eventual death. Your line of thinking suggests that we change society to opperate with new information on a purely reason-based way. But what do you suggest we do with the information that everything will die and eventually nothing will matter? You have clearly demonstrated that you are not willing to simply ignore facts that are not practical, so do you agree we should all just kill ourselves to expedite the process?

Your line of thinking is destructive and it is not necessary to utilize information that is not practical because we are living in a very limited frame where we cannot be worrying about things outside that frame, either because it is not practical to do so, or simply because those things do not have an impact in our lifetime.

Anyways, I'm writting this in the middle of work so it's probably a bit disjointed but I think you can get my point.

I agree with determinism, but what you seem to be suggestic we do as a society with that information is to disregard evil and reckless acts

No, I do not suggest we disregard evil and reckless acts. I suggest we treat people who are responsible for evil and reckless acts in a way that recognises that they are not morally responsible for being the way they are, which usually involves rehabilitation. If they are not able to be rehabilitated, however, then locking them up indefinitely is next best solution.

We do not have any choice in what we do in a true sense, but in a practical sense, in the frame of our world and within our ability to process information, that is completely irrelevant.

It is certainly not irrelevant because recognising it makes you realise the a punitive focused prison system is inferior to a rehabilitative one.

The fact is that people who do shitty things are likely to do them again, and whether it was their choice or not, we should continue to punish criminal behaviour because it works as yet another environmental factor that deters evil acts in a deterministic and practical view.

Once again, I'm not always against punishment. I'm for reality, and studies of reality have determined that punishing people is generally less effective than rehabilitating them. There is certainly still a place for punishment, it just shouldn't be the goal.

If the goal here is to maintain and increase well-being, there is absolutely no fucking way that what you are saying makes any sense.

Everything I have said makes sense to people who take the time to understand it.

There is certain pieces of information which are not at all useful in the practical world, for example: eventual death.

Absolutely useful. Puts things into perspective and allows you to take risks because you know you won't be subjected to eternal consequences for personal failings.

Your line of thinking suggests that we change society to opperate with new information on a purely reason-based way. But what do you suggest we do with the information that everything will die and eventually nothing will matter? You have clearly demonstrated that you are not willing to simply ignore facts that are not practical, so do you agree we should all just kill ourselves to expedite the process?

We do what I recommended above. Just because everything is ultimately meaningless doesn't mean that we don't feel emotions. Yes, killing yourself is also logical when it comes to nihilism. But most people aren't brave enough to kill themself and would rather just expire naturally. That's totally fine and is what I plan on doing.

Your line of thinking is destructive and it is not necessary to utilize information that is not practical because we are living in a very limited frame where we cannot be worrying about things outside that frame, either because it is not practical to do so, or simply because those things do not have an impact in our lifetime.

You don't have to worry. You can and totally ignore the negative aspects of thinking this way. The reason as to why I personally entertain this way of thinking is because it encourages people to treat other human beings fairly, because they understand that the person had control over being the way they are.

Who cares?

Well considering the fact that Donald Trump is currently president of the United States, I think recognizing that oppressing and demonizing people for being poor/being black etc. is illogical is very important.

What does this have to do with your retarded philosophy?

It's not my fault that you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You're certainly not helping yourself by calling it retarded, however.

Your previous comment, about oppression, has nothing to do with your original comment. How does someone's lack of free will, or whatever bullshit you believe, have anything to do with this imaginary oppression?

People who this much about philosophy, in general not just your beliefs, are just pretend, wannabe academics who, in reality, are no better than a downsie that can't go 30 seconds without shitting themselves. Your mother should have spat you out.

I think maybe house arrest with no internet would be more appropriate....but fuck him lol

nothing he said is wrong

Is this the new zozzlebot?

F

Ruining your life for $3. #Justlivestreamerthings

Arab Andy isn't an Arab btw, he's Indian or Pakistani.

lol this guy actually wrote an essay about free will in fucking livestreamfails god i love reddit