So My Highschool "European History" Teacher

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

I think the over-looked matter here is that it wasn't a good or bad thing to do, but that it was an effort in vain. A Wal-Mart burning down is like Fabio losing one strand of hair; it doesn't really change anything. To truly defeat big business, one must become big business, kind of like how Anakin joined the darkside with good intentions.

That said, I don't see the problem with AI's statements. It seems like a few people just want to argue.

[1-up Salesman]

^ I'm not sure I follow you. Because you weren't trying to make a point of it and your act of driving a car is less meaningful, it is less of an issue that you are endangering the lives of others for the sake of easy access to your stick of gum?

If I'm going by the speed limit and stop signs, which were designed to keep things from happening, it shouldn't be as much of a problem as me tearing through everything all for gum or something else, because that's me carelessly putting people at risk. IMHO, there's a difference between carefully driving a car to get something but making sure not to hurt anyone and setting a building on fire with knowledge that people could be inside.

[Deepfake]

You're really not getting it here; Sure, there are laws against whether or not you're allowed to kill people with your car. People don't intend on killing others with their car in over 99% of accidents. The human race manages to not have car accidents no days every year, and the majority of these people are licensed drivers. It's not a matter of whether or not you are capable of driving safely on the day of your test, it's a matter of whether or not you are capable of driving safely the entire time you are driving the vehicle. If you or anyone else lapses in judgement, you may injure or kill someone.

So we have a scenario provided here by which you may be murdered incidentally, with no intent to harm present in the aggressor. It is an incorrect statement to declare that the driver is believed to be fully capable of safely driving an automobile at all times, and he may in fact have a non-fatal lapse in judgement often while driving. This leads to the same logical fallacy employed in any high-risk situation: because something bad has not happened, you are doing nothing wrong. In reality, you are piloting a death machine which hurtles down a set path, and the rest of the public is depending on your ability to prevent it from leaving that path or moving out of turn.

Your concepts of endangerment here are severely flawed. Any action you take may lead you to an unforeseen, endangering situation.

So you are stating that it is somehow more legitimate to be injured by parties committing an act they did not perceive to be risky, rather than an act where the party perceived a danger and committed the act with the knowledge that the possible injury was accounted.

^^^ I understand what you mean, though it gives people jobs. By the way, I've seen you in debates on here, so I'm just letting you know that I'm not meaning any disrespect by trying to discuss stuff before it turns into an argument.

Noted. Guidelines for prevention of assumptions:

Observations I make do not immediately reflect my behavior. I do not have morals, nor am I obligated to moral behavior. The belief in the necessity of morals is something that requires morals. Ideals do not reflect reality; they are a separate concept which may or may not be applicable to a situation, and there is no requirement for my behavior to reflect my ideals.


And I shouldn't have to say it, but companies like Walmart devalue human contributions by operating exclusively for a central profit. People who take jobs at Walmart are the problem. People who shop at Walmart are the problem. Without either of these groups, there is no Walmart.

[1-up Salesman]

So, basically, there's no point in going any further in this because you don't believe in morality anyway, and it's better that humanity doesn't exist so there won't be any pain in selfishness in the world? You definitely seem to consider something like Walmart immoral, despite the fact that you claim you don't have morals. What's wrong with a company that devalues human contribution to you if you supposedly don't have morals?

[LOOT]

@ Thread

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

[quote="Cosmonautical]People who take jobs at Walmart are the problem. People who shop at Walmart are the problem.[/quote"]

Wait, really? What about someone who can't get other work, or someone who can't afford to shop elsewhere? Needy people aren't the problem.

[Spritedude]

At the risk of making a fool of myself...

So, basically, there's no point in going any further in this because you don't believe in morality anyway, and it's better that humanity doesn't exist so there won't be any pain in selfishness in the world? You definitely seem to consider something like Walmart immoral, despite the fact that you claim you don't have morals. What's wrong with a company that devalues human contribution to you if you supposedly don't have morals?

If I understood correctly, what AI was implying is that "morals" are difficult if not impossible to define because of how subjective they are. Saying you have morals is basically saying "I agree with myself". There is no one set of rules that applies to everyone's morals, nor should rules define our morals in the first place.

I'm iffy about putting my foot into this debate, as I'm not as informed on economics and such as I'd like to be, but I do tend to lean towards AI's anti-capitalist views towards huge corporations, that they are hoarding our money, all of it going towards the top and not coming back down. It almost seems pointless for me to argue since I can't think of an "ideal" system. As AI said, ideals don't reflect reality.

It's a Catch-22. The only way to get rid of these huge corporations would be to ignore them completely, stop shopping and giving them our money. But companies like Wal-Mart have made it so that they are the easiest place to shop, overpowering other businesses so that people need to shop there. Admittedly, I'm guilty of shopping at Wal-Mart for pretty much the same reason. I don't exactly codone burning down the places, nor do I agree with "letting God sort people out", but I do agree things would be better without them. Most people don't see this because commercialism has raised us to love them and believe that everything is fine this way. I won't pretend to know the solution or a better system, but that doesn't mean our current one is right.

[Kil'jaeden]

You have all been here long enough to know what an argument with AI is like. Still has nothing on arguing with that Bolt guy, if anyone remembers that. Or that Dai Grepher guy.

Personal jabs aside, what kind of penalty will he get? Just wait, Wal-Mart will buy a new law stating that anyone who damages their property can be summarily decapitated. It would kind of be how burning shipyards was one of the last capital offenses in the UK.

[1-up Salesman]

I understand what you mean, Sprite Dude, but risking lives just because the people shop at a capitalistic mega-corporation isn't right. Regardless of whether or not people drive cars and might accidentally kill someone else. You're setting fire to a building with people that are very likely in it.

However, there seems to be a point that AI is trying to make or already has made that I'm not getting. I'm just saying that I don't agree with the man's methods and if he valued human life I doubt he would set fire to a building that had a very-likely chance of containing people at that moment. I don't care if accidents happen with cars, just because AI's lost loved ones haven't died in a burning Walmart doesn't mean that someone can't die in a burning Walmart. No disrespect to the losses you've suffered, though, sir, I'm sorry you've had to go through that.

[Cravdraa]

For the record, there was very little danger to the general population. The fire immediately set off the sprinklers, which then ruined most of the inventory in the store.
And of course we have no way of knowing what his motives were anyway, so there's no point in arguing if they were justified.
Did he just set the fire because he hates walmarts?
Maybe he was secretly a pyro?

[Deepfake]

So, basically, there's no point in going any further in this because you don't believe in morality anyway, and it's better that humanity doesn't exist so there won't be any pain in selfishness in the world? You definitely seem to consider something like Walmart immoral, despite the fact that you claim you don't have morals. What's wrong with a company that devalues human contribution to you if you supposedly don't have morals?

No, that's not really it. The ideals I could put in place would be impossible, so I scale my ideals down into little manageable concepts that can potentially be applied in a valid way, but I must ascertain the outcome to a large extent to make that worthwhile.

You're still stuck on this car concept, but you're using a perception of wrongness to judge it. My point was that the end result would be objectively similar, and that your values make one action seem more selfish because it was knowingly committed in selfishness. Yet the other is an illusion of unselfishness, it is in fact a very shallow need or want and so little can be derived from it. From my perspective the selfishness of (my motives for) setting a walmart on fire is much more justified than the selfishness for the doodad you hypothetically are travelling to acquire, in the scenario I provided.

Life is selfishness, inherently, it is a self-sustaining self-driven occupation - that isn't a negative thing, that value is subjective. Selfishness is a preservation mechanism, but feeding it wildly is not a way to achieve happiness. Happiness is quite the opposite, it is the ability to quell desire rather than satiate selfishness. Sometimes feeding a selfish impulse can lead to the quelling of desire, but oftentimes desire is a larger more unidentifiable thing that cannot be filled by taking or using.

A company that devalues human contribution is a concept, it is not an actual thing. It is a name for an idea, and people feed that idea. It is an inherent untruth. Ideas like Walmart buy headspace in the public mind, they prevent constructive behavior and create dead-locked buyer and seller cycles to no constructive end. People are always going to be stuck into ideas like corporate welfare in a capital-driven environment, they are stuck perceiving desire as two unfulfilling options: to buy, or to receive the power to buy.

Whether or not I have morals, I like other people, have desire. I do not desire vertically, though, I desire horizontal things that are largely imperceptible to others. I personally have been trained by the current model to believe that my desires are unfulfillable.

If I understood correctly, what AI was implying is that "morals" are difficult if not impossible to define because of how subjective they are. Saying you have morals is basically saying "I agree with myself". There is no one set of rules that applies to everyone's morals, nor should rules define our morals in the first place.

That's accurate.

It's a Catch-22. The only way to get rid of these huge corporations would be to ignore them completely, stop shopping and giving them our money. But companies like Wal-Mart have made it so that they are the easiest place to shop, overpowering other businesses so that people need to shop there. Admittedly, I'm guilty of shopping at Wal-Mart for pretty much the same reason. I don't exactly codone burning down the places, nor do I agree with "letting God sort people out", but I do agree things would be better without them. Most people don't see this because commercialism has raised us to love them and believe that everything is fine this way. I won't pretend to know the solution or a better system, but that doesn't mean our current one is right.

Also accurate assessment. And "let God sort 'em out" was just a context quote from Duke Nukem which is actually a popular expression used by the US Marines, probably misquoting a bishop's fantastic solution for determining heretics by setting them all on fire and "God will know His own" yada yada.

I don't care if accidents happen with cars, just because AI's lost loved ones haven't died in a burning Walmart doesn't mean that someone can't die in a burning Walmart. No disrespect to the losses you've suffered, though, sir, I'm sorry you've had to go through that.

My only point in mentioning that was about as obvious as you can get: they died, others will die, and whether or not a walmart is on fire it will inevitably happen.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

Just saiyan

[quote="Cosmonautical]My only point in mentioning that was about as obvious as you can get: they died"]

Someone setting a building on fire which could quite possibly have someone in it is more akin to murder, rather than just a person "dying." You already know that though.

[Deepfake]

Murder is in the intent, IRHP, which you're not accounting for. Ignoring that, you've already missed the point that the people will eventually be dead, and how you perceive murder will not affect the inevitability of death.

Still beyond that, armed forces are paid and trained murderers. They protect the cage that others have built for us to enjoy, scraped and salvaged from a hostile world. If we do not like the cage, who protects us from it? There is a social contract present here; we receive the benefit of modern society yet we are required to participate in it. If we do not inherently agree with that society, or its benefits, there are still the threats of murder and imprisonment keeping us obedient. If we acknowledge that threat and take exception to it, we become combatants. There is no "right" in forcing people to abide an unhostile lifestyle, because you respond with hostility to any of those who take exception to it.

[Kil'jaeden]

I think it is manslaughter or reckless homicide if you lacked the intent.

[Deepfake]

Yes, and so is crashing your car into someone. Up until the point you do, it's not, though.

[Kil'jaeden]

I don't think cars count. I mean, people are always driving cars. They have given people an unprecented speed and ease of travel, cost aside. This progress requires sacrifice, and if some people get run over, it is the price of fast travel. And think about it this. Vehicles allow for people to get to hospitals faster, and think about how many lives that saves. So, I think it is unfair to call all those cars murderers. It's plain unappreciative of their contributions. Most cars never kill anyone.

Another example. If I jammed my fingers in a toaster and die somehow, is it the fault of the toaster? Or is it my fault? If it happened because an I tripped on an armadillo, would that mean that the toaster is the murderer, and the armadillo was the accomplice?

And think about all of the Wal-Mart buildings. I don't think my town would have a comparable place to shop if we lost the Wal-Mart. And I think it employs a good part of the people too. If some teacher burned it down, it would be like hurting all teachers because then a bunch of people would have no tax money to contribute to the school system. But this guy was probably from a bigger town so maybe it would not be as damaging. And also, all those people in Congress talking about teachers being overpaid and inept will now have an example to bring up. They will abolish European history, maybe even all history, because it influences people to do bad things. If you don't think so, just look at history, it's full of things being burnt down, for one thing. If you believe this is too extreme to happen, keep in mind that this is in Arizona.

[Deepfake]

Most fires do not result in an unintended homicide, including the one discussed, yet 100% of cases resulting in death from either party result in death.

Your town could have alternative businesses with which to support itself if it did not possess a Walmart. You make it sound as if Walmart is a pillar of a respectful and ages-old civilization. If your town could not exist without Walmart, move somewhere else. Start a new business.

If the State you're in is so completely irrational that they would use this as an example for scaremongering, that is a good reason to stop feeding this masturbatory fantasy of a just society.

Government acting insane? You should definitely listen to them, or they might act crazier. Sounds like a fantastic plan. All my best regards to this plan.



Oh, and

[Kil'jaeden]

^ Ambulances crash? What kind of world is this.

Well, I do not live in Arizona. I just know that the arid climate does something to the legislature there.

Oh, and did you know that this teacher is suspected of burning a JC Penney's in 2010? It might be because they figure he must have because he has a grudge against big stores. Who knows if he actually did it. But, if he did, I suspect he was aiming for a high score.

And yes, my town could survive without Wal-Mart. We even have a sort of communal plan. When supplies run low at the Dollar General, we will organize raids into other counties to take prisoners and supplies. In the short term, that would help make up for Wal-Mart being gone. Raiding is a very old practice, and you could almost say it is part of our heritage.

Starting a new business sounds good at first, until I realize that when I get successful I will be the new status quo. I would only become as evil as Wal-Mart is now. And if I don't get a company as big as Wal-Mart, then I guess I would not be as evil. Actually, I may be more evil than Wal-Mart as I am now. I have no way of gauging this, and that bothers me. But, Wal-Mart does have more power to cause misery to people than me, so I guess that is a moot point.

As for insane government, we definitely should listen. Or pretend to. They have chips in a lot of people, and they spie on you from tree cameras and appliances. If you say too much about them, you get put on their list. you don't want on a list do you? Are you already on one? I would not know, given that you live in Australia. I am sure they keep lists too.

And thirdly, what do I even care about homicides? Some people would find it hilarious if people burned to death in a Wal-Mart. If they were less discriminate, they might even enjoy a K-Mart or a Target. Anything burning can be fun. Fires happen all the time, some on their own and some by human intent. There's something like 7 billion people, so burning even a few million would not be a great impact. And that's if you care about numbers. If you don't, then the whole planet being made into a funny shaped partially spherical molten ball again from an impact could be like a party. Fires are festive events, you know. People light them to celebrate things all the time.

[Rainbow Dash]

i see

[Deepfake]

Oh no, you found my secret. I use search engines. I'm so ashamed.