Posts

Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? 2015-04-12T04:03:39.335Z · score: -25 (31 votes)

Comments

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T22:01:46.555Z · score: -9 (9 votes) · LW · GW

This is the most fucking retarded website. I go to sleep, wake up, boom. I lost an additional 60 fucking karma. My account stopped being able to reply to posts "below the threshold" or whatever once I dipped bellow positive five. What the fuck. So downvoting me actually accomplishes more than vaguely masturbating one's worthless opinion in my direction. It ensures that all replies any user makes on one of my posts they have downvote bombed "below the threshold" are exclusively masturbatory, as I am literally unable to fucking engage them in conversation. What a disgusting fucking archetype for a website. And this is supposed to be a haven for rationalists...

But about your post of argument by assertion fallacies, nigger, are you implying that you believe the literal validity of my argument and ability to defend myself in argument matters not if raw, blind human emotionality dictates that what it is I am successfully defending in argument offends them? You are implying that "rationality" to you is literally just facilitating blind human emotionality, and that questioning and defending variables matters not? You left this post as I was sleeping so I haven't any idea how quickly you will reply to this, but if you wish to engage me, respond quickly. If this post gets downvoted by Redditards who can't defend themselves in argument and don't want to even try despite calling themselves rationalists and posting on a supposed "rationalist" website, I will be unable to reply to you.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T21:51:45.428Z · score: -4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Whether or not a word is inherently evil is besides the point

Would you please actually reformat this post so this sentence you wrote turns into an argument, and one that references the conversation this post is supposed to be a part of, because even if this single remark of yours made sense to me, were I to actually disagree with it and attempt to rebut it I will be taking presumptions and arguing against myself, as this is no argument.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T11:13:31.906Z · score: -10 (12 votes) · LW · GW

Listen, I see this post and was going to ignore it until I refreshed and saw you got upvoted, but between Poe's law and my autism I cannot tell whether or not this post is to be taken at face value. I will however say that this community, if this thread is any indication, does not appear to actually champion rational thought. They champion argument by assertion fallacies, masturbatory remarks, refusing to define arguments, passive aggressive downvotes and downvote bombs because they can't defend themselves in argument and don't want to, and general bullshittery. Fuck this community. Are you serious? This entire "rationalist" thing is nothing but a gross circlejerk if you care not for even quantifying your fuckdamn argument when you see one as aggressive as I begging for your shitdamn opinion. Those more unfortunate than I would not even have the capacity to ask questions, as they would be indoctrinated. None of you actually care for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. None of you actually care for winning any argument whatsoever. If this thread is anything to go by you are all humans and nothing more. It has been bred into your psyche from generation after generation of humans doing stupid shit they care not for defending like breeding more humans as worthless as them to be as worthless as you all are. You will live and die incapable of truly grasping the objective breadth of rationality, since you are all human, and you suck some serious human dick. Go fuck yourselves.

Naturally, if any of you even decide to read this you will grossly disagree with me. But what will you do? Will you engage me in argument to defend your dissenting voice within, to convince me to think like you, thus making me forever abstain from expressing the opinions I have, and from ever doing what you believe to be wrong? Of course not! You are all human! What you will do instead is passive-aggressively downvote me without even showing your face, because you believe simply vaguely masturbating your disagreeing with me is the best and most rational course of action. You will be proud of your inability to even quantify your disagreeing with me, and you will fuck a human in your lifetime, and you will conceive a human child just a worthless as you are. And then the cycle of human circlejerking will continue.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T09:34:58.590Z · score: -10 (12 votes) · LW · GW

I only seek to convince you and others to think like me. Mines is a philosophy that should objectively maximize your pleasure and minimize your pain, but for some reason, even though I have personally systematically destroyed every dissenting opinion I have ever seen or could come up with over the years, humans just don't care, and they choose to exhibit inferior behavior. In relation to the thread topic for instance, there is literally, /literally/ no reason at all to take offense at being called an insult or anything, yet humans do anyway, despite the fact that they could easily just construe the emotion they feel upon being exposed to the insult to be pleasurable, even, if that is what they really wanted.

It is not like reason actually matters when it comes to the human, anyway... Look at how many downvotes this thread of mines has gotten... Of the ten downvotes I have currently only a few people have posted in my thread, and I do not even know if any of them have downvoted me. Some even went to my profile to downvote irrelevant posts I feel, as I would see the downvotes just climb in numbers every few seconds. Mate, I don't even know what I am going on about here but if my proposing an argument as to why you should think like me doesn't do it, I don't know what will, and I don't really care... but if you want to engage me in argument or otherwise just make me tell more of the logic behind my opinions I don't mind doing so... this website's reaction to me is very disappointing, though, especially considering that most all users on this site likely identify as "rationalists".

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T07:46:22.465Z · score: -7 (9 votes) · LW · GW

Mate, I assure you that I worship reason and only ask for reason to think and do, and only wish to give others reason to think and do. I don't lie... I do not believe lying to be inherent good. The only times I lie would be in the scenarios where telling the truth and inherently totally adhering to my philosophy would compromise my existence in this world, for instance. Living unaffected by the human is at the moment more important to be than being the best in all aspects...

Fucking... I have to wait six more minutes to post this. But yeah, I am turned on by everything I think is good. I think it's really great. I may as well say the following since I am at -16 karma and talking about random shit to occupy time but I am a gigantic furry. Do you know what a furry is? I define a furry as one who believes that the human is not good enough, so they replace aspects of them with something feral. I think it's absolutely amazing... There is an entire fuckhuge community- ancient, too. This shit was happening before the internet- of users out there who believe they either sympathize with a feral creature more than the human, or they find the human something less than ideal so they replace parts of them with something feral. It is an extremely convenient correlation to force, too, as feral creatures universally have no perception of right or wrong as far as the human knows. They simply are. By correlating your understanding of good to the feral creature- which you are by being a furry- you basically try to rid yourself of your inferior, human traits, which is kind of endearing in a way, but the majority of furries don't view it from that radical of a viewpoint. They worship feral creatures, yes, at least in their own way, but to them they're just indulging in emotion... I treat it as a science that has to be conquered.

I forgot why I started on this thing about furries. Never mind, I scrolled up and saw. I'm turned on by my laptop too.

I have 30 more seconds to waste but, one of the inherent upsides to being a furry is that, if you are an otherkin, meaning you view yourself as an animal of some sort when your eyes are closed, so to speak but in the extreme circumstances even when they are open, you actively saturate all perceived negative aspects of your form you grasp at the moment with your understanding of pleasure, which is the furry creature you identify as. I highly recommend it... it sounds fucked but since the distinctions are so clear it is likely much more safe than doing the same with human worship.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T07:34:35.887Z · score: -6 (8 votes) · LW · GW

And you said that anger is evil, but you admitted to trying to make people angry.

My goal is to convince all who disagree with me to think like me. My main method is argument. My expressing my indignation is just on the side, and I see no reason to stop. I already proposed my logic behind doing so(I doubt it was an actual legit "argument" that I proposed, if you don't mind the No True Scotsman) and you did not respond to any of it beyond a vague remark.

You consider everything to be either evil or sexually gratifying? What about the color blue? Is blue evil?

Okay, I would like to affirm again that my opinion are actually literal satanism, and that I have not actually conveyed the fundamentals to my philosophy yet. I believe everything in this universe as we perceive it is evil, but I also have a less radical viewpoint that distinguishes between the human's understanding of good and evil. Mate, I don't think you understand how much I love philosophy and giving others knowledge... I live for this shit. My mental faculties and possibly literal lack thereof force me to worship this shit. I know nothing else. If I could I would argue against every human I encountered simply to convince them to think like me. If you really want me to write of my satanic views and why I believe them to be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions to be incorrect I would love to, but I want to do so to achieve the ultimate goal of convincing you to think like me. Not you specifically necessarily, but just whatever opposing party I am across, the likes of which is you at the moment. But to answer the question, I believe the color blue is evil, yes. It is not in itself good, as I see no reason to view it as good, so it must be evil. Black, or perhaps the lack of color is what I perceive to be the objective best... because satanism, of course. It opposes everything, so obviously I think the absence of perception is the best...

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T07:23:48.000Z · score: -4 (6 votes) · LW · GW

Yes, it does, and it fits with my philosophy that thinking one's own opinion is "arbitrary evil" is impossible...

I may have been subconsciously refraining from all-out proposing fundamental arguments that expound why I believe my opinions must be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions must be wrong. I haven't argued in a very long time... I'm surprised I can even express myself as well(in my opinion) as I can right now. One year ago I just wasn't able to express my philosophy from so long of not doing so or considering it in English and I had to just apologize and leave the conversation. Wasn't fun. Btdubs, this entire paragraph is just myself stalling because I can't submit this post yet... system claims I am trying to submit too fast... had to wait 10 minutes I believe,

So anyway, from correlating what I perceive to be objective good to all parts of itself and from giving my perception of objective evil the same treatment I believe the food you like should turn you on, which is really great. I highly recommend it. Unfortunately, after I assimilated scat and vore fetishism and such to myself just to have the sympathy I had to change some stuff.

It sucks that humans can't actually bite into bone and the like as easily as other animals... Would be cool.

Comment by hoofwall on What level of compassion do you consider normal, expected, mandatory etc. ? · 2015-04-12T07:13:47.866Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

...Clearly people use them because it is easier to invoke the emotion than through e.g. meditation or whatever you are proposing.

This assumes of course that the human's world and the human's lifestyle is rational. I believe it is not. Humans deciding to do one thing over another does not necessarily mean that their choice is the best. Humans have collectively done some really stupid shit in the past...

Besides, this philosophy also applies to the other side. Is there an inherent correlation between what other people do (say, make noise that makes our ears hurt) and subjective pain felt?

No, not if "subjective pain felt" is defined as raw emotion. Emotion can be manipulated with perception.

If you have some sort of a meditation technique that can make people as elevated as they are made by a good song, can't this be used the same way to detach from pain, in which other people infringing on our rights or not respecting the live and let live fully becomes a moot point?

I think I am getting confused here, and misunderstanding you. If the pain you speak of in this excerpt were for instance defined as a human being hit with a baseball bat by another human, I would fallback to my argument of emotion existing exclusively in the mind and of relying on things outside of your head being redundant and unnecessary if you can simply remember how to rouse that emotion. In this scenario, I do not believe listening to music in 3D space could possibly be inherent good, so the girl should just stop listening to the music if another human can hear it, and it makes them unhappy.

Why do you turn an empirical question into a philosophical one?

I don't understand... Would you please rephrase this inquiry in layman's terms for me? But I answered the question as I did because I thought doing so was the best way. Sorry if this post sucks... it was difficult to compose.

By the way, it said I had to wait one minute to submit this post despite it taking me several minutes of typing to compose so I don't know if this will double post. I don't see a copy of this post on my userpage right now.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T07:03:19.257Z · score: -10 (12 votes) · LW · GW

That looks like you're just attempting to piss me off. It doesn't seem to actually mean anything.

And what the niggershitting babyfuck does this mean? Do you think you formally quantify what of my post there "doesn't actually mean anything" and why it is so? Do you think you explain why what I proposed is not a valid argument? Do you think you in any way accomplish anything with this post beyond simply ejaculating your vague, worthless, human bullshit kind of in my direction to make yourself feel better about the fact that you can't defend yourself in argument and do not even want to try?

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T06:55:38.024Z · score: -3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

In your first scenario, I just cannot understand... perhaps it is my simply lacking certain mental faculties here that would render my mind normal, but I cannot sympathize with just not wanting certain food while not actually claiming that your consuming that certain food will be inherent evil, or that the certain food is in itself inherent evil. If the evil is not inherent then the argument is arbitrary, as the evil you claim is not a fundamental property of that construct as it exists naturally in this universe. If I don't want to eat something you could bet your ass that I would argue against my consuming that thing to the death...

In the second scenario that is one where one must compromise on what I believe to be the objective most rational method for the sake of accomplishing a side goal, which is different to simply forcing the world to tend to its most rational end. One might have to do that to simply continue living. That is a very cheap scenario to propose... the human's irrational world makes it so you cannot be rational(as I perceive it) without possibly throwing your life away. Composing this paragraph was difficult, and the first paragraph here was a second draft but I'd like to be clear that I am of the opinion that it is impossible to think something is arbitrary evil, rather than inherent evil... arbitrary evil does not make sense to me...

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T06:39:18.134Z · score: -7 (9 votes) · LW · GW

I consider it important because I am totally extreme with my opinions. I hate humans so much I correlate every aspect of them to evil. I worship what I consider to be objective good so much that I'm fucking turned on by it, which is ridiculous since a lot of it isn't even remotely sexual. In my eyes, everything conceivable can be forced to conform to the dichotomy of good verses evil, and if something cannot be good it is evil. I want the opposing party to understand that I find their philosophy utterly disgusting if I disagree with it, and I want them to know that I want them to think like me, and to turn to me to have their questions answered. I once wanted to force the world to tend to the end that I wanted it to, but that seems not realistic. I still have my belligerence and extreme opinions, though. I would also like to affirm again that I have yet to be given a single rational reason to abstain from expressing my indignation towards anything when I feel like expressing it. Also, human morality is exclusively a consequence of emotion... it is only natural I want to affirm that I correlate evil to pain, and anger.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T06:28:49.598Z · score: -12 (14 votes) · LW · GW

I hope you realize that you expect sheer, unadulterated blind conformity from me here, and that you have not even remotely attempted to prove my expression in the English language to be inherent evil, and your proposed amended iteration of my expression to be inherent good.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T06:25:30.317Z · score: -3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Except as we've just established you would (and should treat them differently).

Excuse me? Did you miss the part of the excerpt of mines you quoted in this post where I said "were I to approach them for instance, or were I even to just consider them"? I said I would not discriminate against those subset of human were I to approach them, or consider them, and that is what I expected my original remark to be understand as. Without adding variables you have no reason to consider from the excerpt itself, when simply considering me and a retard, a black human, or a gay, I would not treat them any differently than I would any other human.

Although, here it's less about confusing two meanings and more about ritually saying statements perceived as socially desirable even if it would be insane to actually act on the literal advice.

I don't really understand this but I would like to affirm that I do not very much care for social constructs. I care for argument, and I care for reason. As I am probably autistic, I cannot understand many social constructs and have yet to be given rational reason to even consider them, so I don't. If you wish you convince me to heed social constructs in any way please provide an argument defending your notion.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T06:21:01.573Z · score: -2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I think the same thing is going on here. You're not swearing because "fucking" is such an amazingly useful word. You're signalling something. If I had to guess, I'd say that you're signalling that you don't need us by burning your bridges with us.

Who is "us"? Is "us" those who live by LessWrong's philosophy? This community disagrees with my argument? But yes, I believe your conclusion is what I said outright... I use it because it is a trigger word to humans... It pisses them off, despite the fact that I may have said or written a thousand words of argument prior to dropping a human's trigger word that explains why ascribing emotion. and the emotion they do to their trigger word is irrational.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T06:16:50.004Z · score: -3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Are you implying that you believe objective morality bends to the whims of whatever method you need to convince a human to think like you? Are you implying that you believe the fundamental properties of the written and spoken word are just gone in certain instances where humans decide they want to be offended by them?

I am of the opinion that the written and spoken word could never be inherent evil. You appear to be implying that if a human thinks a word is inherent evil then I should treat it as if it is in order to accomplish a "good result", if I must. What is a "good result"? If a "good result" is the objective most rational end the universe could tend to then compromising on one's standards because the human has arbitrarily-decided they want you to absolutely does not facilitate that "good result".

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T06:07:53.205Z · score: -5 (7 votes) · LW · GW

Then why did you use the word "discriminate" when you meant "hate"?

Because I thought if that excerpt of mines were to be taken literally it would be understood as my simply not treating a retard, a black human, or a gay any differently from any other human were I to approach them for instance, or were I even to just consider them. I don't ascribe negative emotion to my understanding of them so I don't scowl when I think of them, for instance. I've also seen "discrimination" as a word used as I used it, and assumed my thought would be understood. A lot of what I say is to be taken something less than literally, such as the fact that I even use the word "retard" as an insult when I haven't anything against literal retards, but my expression makes sense to me.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T05:52:15.939Z · score: -1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I suppose I wouldn't want someone incompetent for a certain task to accomplish that certain task but what I meant was, I do not actively hate any of those things I mentioned as distinguished from just the idea of the human.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T05:50:22.989Z · score: -6 (8 votes) · LW · GW

you go on to argue that that's wrong because words don't inherently correspond to their meanings. This seems to be your argument against censorship. But you don't need to believe that certain combinations of words are inherently evil to be for censoring those words. You just need to believe that people hearing those words can result in things you don't want.

I don't understand why your claim here would be true, though. How could a human just "not want" something if they don't believe that something is inherent evil? They think it is arbitrary evil? Consciously claiming that an opinion is arbitrary then thinking that opinion is worth something seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Is it not impossible to win an argument if your position is entirely arbitrary?

You seem to anticipate this sort of response earlier on (it's hard to say, your writing isn't easy to comprehend), but dismiss the response because apparently it's irrational to feel emotions after seeing words. You think this because words don't inherently mean anything. Why you feel we should only feel emotions when seeing things that inherently mean something is never explained.

I was trying to argue that seeing things could never inherently mean anything, though. I was trying to affirm that emotion as it exists in the human mind is completely independent of all external constructs, such as words, or nudity.

Profanity aside, most people here would agree that morality is to some extent arbitrary. What I don't see is why you believe that has anything to do with censorship.

I don't know what you're referring to here. If you're referring to my proposing the breadth of this universe that was just to have done so so the notion of my argument expecting blind conformity out or readers would be killed.

Finally, I'm downvoting this mostly because it's very poorly written. It takes way too much effort to figure out what you probably meant and I would like to see less of this on this site. You say you haven't read a book since 8th grade. I'm sure you haven't.

Passive aggression aside, I still do not understand how what I written was poor at all. I don't understand what I did wrong. Why should I do any of what you suggest I do?

Comment by hoofwall on Stupid Questions April 2015 · 2015-04-12T05:09:39.446Z · score: -7 (9 votes) · LW · GW

Mate, you can argument by assertion fallacy your opinions all you want but it appears to me that my opinions are correct, and that all conceivable dissenting opinions are incorrect, and I can explain why. If pure logic cannot convince others to think like me then does it not mean that the only way to have them conform to what I want them to is by compromising the integrity of my beliefs, and attempting to effect them via playing with their emotionality directly? That is irrational behavior. I would rather be correct and affirm my superiority the right way than try to manipulate people irrationally because my rhetoric will fall on deaf ears.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T04:54:34.604Z · score: -8 (10 votes) · LW · GW

I don't think that was the implication. What I took from it is that you shouldn't be a dick.

Stop beating around the bush. I directly implied in the post of mines to which you are responding that I believe censoring myself because the human wants me to do so is irrational. You could have attempted to rebut my argument in my original post where I proposed my argument as for why I believe censorship is irrational. You could have asked me to expound something, such as perhaps why I value conforming to standards that I perceive to be the best so highly. You could have at the very least quantified what it means to "be a dick" for me and explained why I should care even a little bit about what humans perceive to be "dickish". You did nothing of the sort.

What would insulting/infuriating the person with whom you're discussing possibly accomplish, besides making them less likely to cooperate? besides making them less likely to cooperate?

And this is the main issue you have been ignoring. I am trying to approach things from a purely logical standpoint. You however are proposing here that I should consider raw human emotionality, as if that means anything; as if that explains why I should do so, why doing so is good, why doing otherwise is bad etc. Basically you leave almost everything undefined to me here and nothing of this post convinces me to think like you, or even fully quantifies your position. I currently do not care about human cooperation. I care about objective good, objective bad, and being objectively good. But to answer your question, insulting/ infuriating any human with whom I am conversing would serve to convey how evil I find them or their opinions. I have yet to be given a rational reason to abstain from expressing such indignant notions.

Comment by hoofwall on Is my theory on why censorship is wrong correct? · 2015-04-12T04:41:04.496Z · score: -8 (10 votes) · LW · GW

Are you implying that I should conform to literal objective inferior* behavior simply because the human is irrational and the validity of my argument and ability to defend myself in argument does not matter to them?

*forgot this word before this edit

Comment by hoofwall on What level of compassion do you consider normal, expected, mandatory etc. ? · 2015-04-11T23:32:05.856Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I like this question. It is a lot less intimidating that a lot of the other posts on this site I've seen in my short time being here, and I feel I can actually contribute using only my philosophy and ability to express myself in the English language, rather than also needing knowledge on other constructs.

In my opinion, emotion starts and ends with the mind, so the notion that for instance a specific human's emotion can exist outside of their mind is completely asinine. As such, listening to music in reality, in itself, is total redundancy. It is not mandatory for the Alice in your proposed scenario to listen to her music in reality to evoke and indulge in her emotion. The music she is listening to in reality serves only to interact with her physical being(in this scenario via her receptivity for sound) for the sake of rousing what I define as "memory" within her. Alice retains her emotionality regardless of ever having listened to her music in this scenario in her lifetime, therefore, the music serves only to rouse specific emotion within her, thus serving as a method to quantify it for her, mentally. There is still no inherent correlation between her music as it exists in reality and her emotion. All dissenting opinions are irrational, I believe...

Because Alice's indulging in her music or any music in reality is entirely unnecessary insofar as maximizing her pleasure or minimizing her pain is concerned- which is upon which my philosophy is founded and the end to which I believe all humans should tend- if her indulging in her music in this scenario infringes upon the most basic utilitarian doctrine of "live and let live" she should stop. Alice will never be able to provide a rational reason to listen to her music. Alice will never be able to absolutely, objectively explain why she should infringe upon the doctrine of "live and let live" for the sake of her arbitrarily ascribing emotion to music in 3D space. It would take me several hundred words to explain why I believe maximizing(the human's) pleasure and minimizing(the human's) pain is objective good and I would rather not, not yet, but these are my opinions...

Excluding my simply explaining why I believe my basis for rational thought(against which I contest all other bases for rational thought and claim them to be inferior) is correct, I don't see what more there is for me to address... sorry

Comment by hoofwall on Stupid Questions April 2015 · 2015-04-11T23:09:54.858Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Sorry, I suppose I misused the word "devolve"... I've seen others use it as I have in my post here so I thought it was okay, but I suppose not. Perhaps they misused it, and if so I should not be tolerating the arbitrary and blatant misuse of words. What I meant by that word though was simply falling in stature. My using the word was to express that I believed humans have fallen in stature to the point that they cannot fall in stature anymore, and that the humans who roam the earth today will continue to breed and forge the world they want without changing very much in the next few generations of human if ever.

I just realized this site has a quoting feature. That makes responding to posts SO much easier...

But I find it useful to remind myself that humans have no evolutionary reason to be perfectly rational.

Yes... I believe the same thing. One does not have to provide to anything a rational reason to copulate, and to breed. One does not need to provide a rational reason to anything to live, to kill, to, force the world to tend to the end they want or anything. Humans appear to simply do. Naturally, through generations of the human simply doing, and doing as they please, they have perhaps become incapable of actually questioning whether or not simply doing is right, but what do I know? This is just a theory, and not one I can prove with sheer logic. Even if I fancied doing so it would be a waste of time... It would be far worth my effort to simply deduce and affirm what it means to be right, and what it means to be wrong. Whether or not the human has the capacity to truly be rational and what caused rationality and being human to be mutually exclusive if they are can be questioned later...

Comment by hoofwall on Stupid Questions April 2015 · 2015-04-11T23:00:31.297Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Sorry, before I mention my personal goals I just want to say that I disagree with the notion that logic is meaningless without being founded on an underlying goal... Logic as I understand it is by definition merely a method of thinking, or the concept of sequencing thought to reach conclusions, and determining why some of such sequences are right. I believe logic in itself- according to the second definition I proposed- tends to the end of a goal, and that goal is rationality. Naturally, without having anything to sequence logic is nothing and has no breadth, but in this universe where the breadth of the construct "logic" is contingent on the human's ability to sequence data it should inherently have a goal, at least today as the human appears, and that goal should be rationality, in my opinion. I believe assuming your proposal is correct would mean assuming "logic" as you used it in your proposal is simply defined as a method of thinking, and not its more fundamental meaning, which I proposed.

My goal is simply to express in my lifetime my views on everything... I do not feel I can change the world. I do not feel I can simply approach every human I encounter and explain to them why I believe my opinions to be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions to be wrong. I will just express myself in my own way one day and that will be it... I created an account on this website more or less randomly for me because I was recommended going here once, a while ago.

I do not believe that "stress" in itself is something to be considered when it comes to one's method of forcing the world to tend to the end they want to... I will explain what I mean. Please excuse any possible argument by assertion fallacies henceforth... converting everything to E-Prime is tiring but I do believe opinions have to actually be defended to be rational... If i ever simply assert that I believe something is true that is a mistake, as i meant to rationalize its breadth in its entirety to believe it has the capacity to be defended and inherently rebut all conceivable dissenting arguments...

Obviously, the human's understanding of rationality is a consequence of themselves, to some extent. That is not to say that rationality so defined is entirely a consequence of the human and that the human literally created a portion of this universe that retains the properties of "rationality"... What I mean is, humans appear to feel emotion, and humans appear to correlate their understanding of the concepts of "good" and "evil" to what they perceive to be positive and negative emotion, respectively. Fundamentally, every human who retains the standard properties of the human lives through their own emotionality and their idea of good and evil is founded on that very thing.

Ugh... I just realized if I expound my philosophy any further I will be affirming for the first time since posting here my opinions which many will probably disagree with but basically I think that "stress" if "stress" is defined as pain(negative emotion) entirely in the head, meaning it is simply perception, ascribing emotion to certain things and feeling pain as a result, it is entirely a consequence of perception and can be manipulated to become pleasure... Perhaps it will be a certain iteration of masochism, and perhaps actually enduring perceived stress in reality will have consequences on the outside world as distinguished from your own psyche, possibly prompting an entire lifestyle change but "stress" should be irrelevant if its properties can just be totally changed with a different opinion, in my opinion.

When it comes to me, I believe so strongly that all who disagree with me is wrong that it seems extremely unnecessary to saturate my believing their being wrong with something else in an attempt to make me cope with my own emotionality. I believe there are other ways to cope with oneself than compromising on their own beliefs. I just correlate things to good or evil freely, at face value. I really wouldn't make progress insofar as inciting a revolution is concerned by tolerating what I believe to be wrong, either. Perhaps by "goals" you mean something other than forcing the world to tend to its most rational end as you perceive it.

About your last sentence, I don't believe in manipulating via anything other than argument to entice others to do as you wish... If it is something less than true reason to think, which I believe can only be conveyed via argument of some sort, it will be blind conformity, and any society or standard based on that is doomed to conceive notions as worthless as the one it was founded on, making it inferior to what it could and I believe should be. Also, it's interesting that misanthropes are drawn to reason. I kind of expected it but I've had bad experiences with self-proclaimed misanthropes retaining the human property I hate, rendering their sub-ostracization asinine in my eyes... I probably rambled a lot in this post, sorry. I don't know what type of reply I would expect to this if any. Thanks for reading if you did.

Comment by hoofwall on Welcome to Less Wrong! (7th thread, December 2014) · 2015-04-11T14:15:34.658Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Hi. I did indeed mean what you express as "to reason" when I said "rationalize"... I am entirely unfamiliar with the distinctions made on this site so thanks for pointing out to me how others might misinterpret what I say. Also, thanks for the welcome.

Sorry for using you like this but, do you know whether or not swearing is against the rules here, and if so would you please tell me if it is or not? The closest to a rule list I found was just about etiquette. I'm wondering whether or not uttering like the "n word" for instance would get me banned or something... I want to know how much freedom I have for expression here. I don't intend to spam or anything; I just want to know what I am allowed to do.

Comment by hoofwall on Welcome to Less Wrong! (7th thread, December 2014) · 2015-04-11T12:35:10.084Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Hi! I am socially retarded... There are many things the standard human was born with the capacity to grasp that I never can. The word "autism" appears to me to be being thrown around a lot lately, mostly as a meaningless word used to convey that one thinks another is simply not normal but when I first noticed how heavily users on the internet threw around the word two years ago I identified as such for a bit to make conversation more expedient. I am able to comprehend metaphors and similes and such for some reason, but things such as having the capacity to roleplay or being able to perceive what I should do in any given scenario to maximize the happiness of the human before me is incomprehensible to me. I like to think I am a purely logical thinker and was born to be such but I'd rather not start talking about that right now...

My education is pretty poor. Eighth grade. I have read next to no books, and the internet was what taught me to speak English as I do today. My English was very basic prior, even though it is my only language. I looked up in the dictionary every word I encountered that I couldn't define for two years, until I decided that refining my expression in the English language for the human's sake was a waste of time and stopped caring.

I feel like I can't express more about myself without delving right into my philosophy, the likes of which I used to contest with every mind I came across indiscriminately only to have them still disagree with me 99% of the time despite my cornering them in argument, and I don't really want to because I've had such bad experiences with convincing others to think like me. The downvote system on this website is kind of intimidating as well... my first post on this website got downvoted once almost immediately and I'm not sure if I can tell by whom. I hate systems that enable passive-aggression like that. Even conversing in real life is awful because others can use petty tricks to try to emotionally manipulate you instead of actually just explaining why you should think like them via argument. It's just masturbation for them, and they have no interest in convincing you to think like them. I suppose that is one thing I feel I can safely say about my philosophy... I don't see my opinions as just opinions, I see them as an objective rationalization of this universe the likes of which one cannot disagree with without simply being wrong. I want to rationalize everything too, you know. I used to be indoctrinated to the point where I thought simply asking questions was evil. All I'd ever wanted to do was rationalize to all my understanding of the universe to objectively minimize their pain and maximize their pleasure for the sake of forcing the world to tend to its most rational end as i perceive it but whatever... I'm still being impertinent with whatever I'm writing here since I don't think just up and writing out my opinions would be a good idea.

I have very few interests. I really only care about defining right and wrong, and giving my philosophy to others, which I haven't done for a very long time. One day I hope to start expressing my opinions on what is right and wrong in a formal manner just to have done so in my lifetime. I apologize for the entirely vague post... I still haven't really any idea how this site works but if I ever debate users here or something I won't hesitate to express my opinions in their entirety.

Comment by hoofwall on Tell Your Rationalist Origin Story · 2015-04-11T11:53:23.841Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

After seeing an image I thought was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen I tried to create an imaginary friend of her and after she became established enough in my mind I guess, she immediately gave me ideas on what it truly meant to be right(which was a first to me since my philosophy on everything was very unfortunate prior) and I've been effectively living vicariously through her since...

Comment by hoofwall on Stupid Questions April 2015 · 2015-04-11T11:33:03.763Z · score: 2 (6 votes) · LW · GW

Sorry, never been here before and know nothing about this place and all the other "stupid questions" here seem super formal so I feel really out of place here but, how common is it for the users on this site, the likes of whom likely all refer to themselves as rationalists to be misanthropes?

I hate humans. I hate humans so much. I used to think I could change them. I used to think every human who exhibited behavior I found to be inferior was simply ignorant of true rationality. Mines is a very long story that I no longer want to tell but it was months of thinking I could change every mind I found inferior before I came to the conclusion that humans are worthless and that they've simply devolved to the lowest common denominator, to the point where they retain not the capacity to grasp the objective breadth of rationality in this universe unless they lack the very things that make them human.

I have extremely strong opinions on everything I've cared to question, the likes of which I wish to express formally before I die but I hate humans so much. I wouldn't be doing it for the human. I am probably technically depressed at the moment and have been for a long time and was just wondering how many self-proclaimed rationalists consider themselves misanthropes, or at least exhibit misanthropic views...