[TV] Rick and Morty

[Jester Joe]

this is something of a derail but this statement amused me so much that i feel compelled to take a moment to appreciate it.
you actually managed to trip over your dick and fall into a good point, and that good point is nearly entirely opposite to what you were trying to convey, and that's hilarious.

it IS in fact definitely not possible to know something is wrong unless you imagine yourself doing it and then determine it feels wrong.
you can be told something is wrong, and then never once in your life think about that thing, but then you just know that you were told it's wrong... you don't know yourself that it's wrong.

anyways it's mostly an ontological quibble but i was incredibly entertained by it.

I...what.

At what point do you need to imagine murdering someone to know that "Hey, taking someone's life is bad". You're really leaving out a lot to reach your conclusion there, it's not just about "being told", it's about learning and growing up. You don't have to imagine killing people to have an appreciation for life.

[Darththeo]

anyways it's mostly an ontological quibble but i was incredibly entertained by it.

Honestly, he is pretty funny with his lame attempts to troll and flame. I mean I feel like I am back 20 years ago on message boards I was apart of back then.

I have him on ignore now, because frankly if I want to deal with that level of reaction I will watch a guy flip out over Szechuan Sauce.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This is where the thread is:



This is where we are:

[Malkiah]

I...what.

right?

At what point do you need to imagine murdering someone to know that "Hey, taking someone's life is bad".

at the point at which the concept of "murder", or "taking" or "life" have to be considered and understood.
morality is not like gravity or the visible light spectrum - it's not an inherent function of the universe that we discover and then learn about through observation... it's the construct of a (relatively) complex biological structure that is capable of what we call "thought", ie: our brains. we came up with morality.
what morality is, or isn't, is completely dependent on what humans decide it is, or isn't.

thus, the morality of a thing cannot be determined until the thing has been considered and a conclusion drawn.
it's literally impossible to have moral knowledge of a thing that you haven't ever thought about.
(in this instance i'm using the term "moral knowledge" to convey understanding an idea and being able to explain why it's wrong. i draw this distinction because technically you could just be told something is immoral but then never even know what the thing is much less why it's wrong, but still consider it immoral.)

You're really leaving out a lot to reach your conclusion there, it's not just about "being told", it's about learning and growing up.

do you not realize that "learning" is what happens when you think about things you hadn't thought about before, or experience things you hadn't experienced before?

You don't have to imagine killing people to have an appreciation for life.

well technically i'd agree you don't have to imagine killing people to have an appreciation for life, but it's equally true that you don't need to submit a 1040 EZ tax form to appreciate ramen noodles - the two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

but here's what you absolutely can't do: have a moral position on killing someone without considering what "killing someone" is on a conceptual level and what it means in the framework of human life... which is, and this is the point i'm making, quite literally thinking about killing someone.

[Darththeo]

I...what.

At what point do you need to imagine murdering someone to know that "Hey, taking someone's life is bad". You're really leaving out a lot to reach your conclusion there, it's not just about "being told", it's about learning and growing up. You don't have to imagine killing people to have an appreciation for life.

Can I just say, I also never said you had to think about you personally doing it or details. I admit it could have been view that way. Just to come to a moral judgment, you have to have a least a concept of what the thing is and what it entails. Even if you imagine another person doing it, that's scenario is all in your head. You are still thinking of about murder.

All I am getting at, you can't have a conversation about the morality of a real world action without an understanding, which requires thought, of what happened. With Roiland, I can see what he does and consider his actions. I am not seeing myself do that, but I am thinking about those actions, I am still able to walk through those events in my head. My conclusion is "That's messed how. How the crap did he think this was okay? Did he even think this was okay?"

[Jester Joe]

at the point at which the concept of "murder", or "taking" or "life" have to be considered and understood.
morality is not like gravity or the visible light spectrum - it's not an inherent function of the universe that we discover and then learn about through observation... it's the construct of a (relatively) complex biological structure that is capable of what we call "thought", ie: our brains. we came up with morality.
what morality is, or isn't, is completely dependent on what humans decide it is, or isn't.

None of this has to do with imagining murdering someone.

thus, the morality of a thing cannot be determined until the thing has been considered and a conclusion drawn.
it's literally impossible to have moral knowledge of a thing that you haven't ever thought about.
(in this instance i'm using the term "moral knowledge" to convey understanding an idea and being able to explain why it's wrong. i draw this distinction because technically you could just be told something is immoral but then never even know what the thing is much less why it's wrong, but still consider it immoral.)

Except you're viewing the only way to know something as "imagining doing it yourself".

Do you really not get why this is just coming off as narrow minded and the explanations as a bit...pompous?

Because there's plenty of holes in the argument, but there's one that's abundantly clear, and that's being a victim of a crime, or related to someone who was murdered. You'd never have to imagine it, or anything at that point because you've already lived through the consequences of someone else's actions.

do you not realize that "learning" is what happens when you think about things you hadn't thought about before, or experience things you hadn't experienced before?

Learning isn't as narrow as you're making it sound.

well technically i'd agree you don't have to imagine killing people to have an appreciation for life, but it's equally true that you don't need to submit a 1040 EZ tax form to appreciate ramen noodles - the two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

This is you drawing a conclusion that wasn't said. I didn't say you have to imagine people to have an appreciation of life, I said you would know murder is wrong if you have an appreciation for life. All rectangles are squares but not all squares are rectangles.

but here's what you absolutely can't do: have a moral position on killing someone without considering what "killing someone" is on a conceptual level and what it means in the framework of human life... which is, and this is the point i'm making, quite literally thinking about killing someone.

I'm a bit concerned if the only way you have to think about whether something is right or wrong is actually partaking in the actual event, and not just drawing upon past knowledge.

Can I just say, I also never said you had to think about you personally doing it or details. I admit it could have been view that way. Just to come to a moral judgment, you have to have a least a concept of what the thing is and what it entails. Even if you imagine another person doing it, that's scenario is all in your head. You are still thinking of about murder.

All I am getting at, you can't have a conversation about the morality of a real world action without an understanding, which requires thought, of what happened. With Roiland, I can see what he does and consider his actions. I am not seeing myself do that, but I am thinking about those actions, I am still able to walk through those events in my head. My conclusion is "That's messed how. How the crap did he think this was okay? Did he even think this was okay?"

Honestly, with all due respect, with how many posts were in the last several pages, I've lost track of who claimed what at this point so I didn't even realize it originated from you anyway.

And I don't plan on getting dragged into pages upon pages of posts, I just think it's really weird to claim "THIS is the only way to determine morals!" as if there isn't, ya know, dozens of conflicting philosophies out there. Which isn't directed at you, it's more of the above post I'm responding to.

[Malkiah]

None of this has to do with imagining murdering someone.

i cannot conceive of how it doesn't.

Except you're viewing the only way to know something as "imagining doing it yourself".

no, i'm viewing the only way to know if you consider something moral or not as "imagining doing it yourself"

Because there's plenty of holes in the argument, but there's one that's abundantly clear, and that's being a victim of a crime, or related to someone who was murdered. You'd never have to imagine it, or anything at that point because you've already lived through the consequences of someone else's actions.

well yes obviously, if you experience it first hand you don't need to contemplate it conceptually.
but that's like going out of your way to declare that water is wet any time you reference the existence of water... it seems pretty obvious.

Learning isn't as narrow as you're making it sound.

yes it is.

This is you drawing a conclusion that wasn't said. I didn't say you have to imagine people to have an appreciation of life

You don't have to imagine killing people to have an appreciation for life.

i mean, you literally did.

I said you would know murder is wrong if you have an appreciation for life. All rectangles are squares but not all squares are rectangles.

if that's what you're now saying, i accept the correction.
that is not what you said in the thing i replied to.

I'm a bit concerned if the only way you have to think about whether something is right or wrong is actually partaking in the actual event, and not just drawing upon past knowledge.

what? what end of who's ass did you pull that out of?
the thing you're quoting in this response literally says you can't have a moral position on something without considering what the thing means... that isn't partaking in a thing, that is considering what it means.

[Darththeo]

--snip--

There are many ways to think about action and to come the conclusion it is not moral without having to imagine you personally doing it.

While all things require thought, and therefore you have to think about what a thing is. There is no specific thought process.

I don't have to imagine myself doing the action to judge Roiland or Warner Discovery's actions to be able to judge them.
I don't have to imagine doing what the characters in the show do to judge the character on a moral level.

As long as I can understand the concept which at the end of the day is a thought. Whatever thought process I need to make the judgment can be enough. I don't need to be able to imagine murdering someone to say it is immoral.

[Jester Joe]

i cannot conceive of how it doesn't.

Because it was word salad. It came across as an attempt to portray what's being said as more intelligence when ultimately all you said was "morality isn't a force of nature".

Which...literally no one said?

no, i'm viewing the only way to know if you consider something moral or not as "imagining doing it yourself"

which is faulty, and you literally just admit it after. There's plenty of other ways to figure things out, you do not have to fantasize about committing crimes to know they're wrong.

well yes obviously, if you experience it first hand you don't need to contemplate it conceptually.
but

There is no but.

yes it is.

It's really not. I mean, you have two blanket statements.

Either you think about something you haven't thought about before, or experience something you haven't experience before.

So if I think about pies, that means I can't learn about them because I've already thought about them, and I've experienced pies before?
Do I have to experience fire being hot to know it's hot?

The idea that it has to be something you haven't thought about or experienced kinda flies right against the entire Scientific Theory. People have thought about why they stick to the surface of Earth, and people have experienced it, but no one learned about gravity until it was explored further.

To you, that might just be a nuance of your claim, but you stated a straight up black and white statement, no in-betweens.

i mean, you literally did.

You're missing the context. In the first statement, I'm talking about your claim that you have to imagine murdering to figure out if it's right or wrong.
So my statement is saying that an appreciation of life is all that's needed. That's the core message of it.

But then you're taking it and going "Well of course you can learn an appreciation of life from other ways besides imagining murder". But that wasn't my point.

And the fact that you think an appreciation of life and knowing murder is pretty terrible are two drastically different things is a bit weird.

what? what end of who's ass did you pull that out of?
the thing you're quoting in this response literally says you can't have a moral position on something without considering what the thing means... that isn't partaking in a thing, that is considering what it means.

I missed a single word, but you don't need to consider partaking in a murder to know it's wrong.

I genuinely do not know how much further this needs to be stated. You acknowledged other examples as ways but then keep going "But yeah you also need to imagine it".

Which isn't worth continuing at this rate and getting almost as pretentious as Rick and Morty itself.

[Triceron]

To think you need to experience raping people to have an understanding of how immoral raping people would be.

[Fabinas]

We're way outside the scope of "Rick and Morty" here people... even taking the Justin Roiland shit into account.

Funny isn't it?

The conversation and arguments have been off-topic for pages now, yet they wer allowed, because no "woke" topic. Usually those get sent to GenOT, but not this one. if this was about feminism or patriarchy in general, it would have been shut down. Guess morality OT discussion is not so general and, thus, allowed.

Even have 2 mods actively participating and encouraging the OT discussion.

I am wondering whether this is a double standard or not. I have enjoyed the discussion (a bit, before it started the usual debate ogre circle dance), but now i am confused about the OT rules and forbidden topics in this subforum.

[Orange Joe]

snip

Your whole point is false and stupid. Maybe that is how YOU decide, in which case you might want to get some help. I Don't have to imagine myself mutilating a pet to know that is morally wrong.

[Okacz]

Funny isn't it?

The conversation and arguments have been off-topic for pages now, yet they wer allowed, because no "woke" topic. Usually those get sent to GenOT, but not this one. if this was about feminism or patriarchy in general, it would have been shut down. Guess morality OT discussion is not so general and, thus, allowed.

Even have 2 mods actively participating and encouraging the OT discussion.

I am wondering whether this is a double standard or not. I have enjoyed the discussion (a bit, before it started the usual debate ogre circle dance), but now i am confused about the OT rules and forbidden topics in this subforum.

Perhaps we need a heroic figure to start bringing up racist and chauvinist points of view, so a mod would put a stop to whatever this is, and the threat would turn into "Slightly changed lines of R&M dialogue that make fun out of allegations", the way it should be.

Not feeling particularly heroic today, anyone else could bite the bullet?

[Jester Joe]

Even have 2 mods actively participating and encouraging the OT discussion.

I dunno what thread you're reading, but 3 posts is hardly encouraging anything.

It's not as if there's a lot of Rick and Morty at the moment airing to discuss, and the whole morality of the situation was kinda the only thing to discuss.
I do agree that the horse is paste at this point and that's why I said twice I'm not really getting involved in this though. I'm not a mod for this section either so not my place to say if something should stop or not.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I am wondering whether this is a double standard or not. I have enjoyed the discussion (a bit, before it started the usual debate ogre circle dance), but now i am confused about the OT rules and forbidden topics in this subforum.

The difference is that, while this has strayed away from the topic of "Rick and Morty" into a more generealized disccussion about morality...morality itself is not a forbidden topic. The two mods participating are not mods of this particular sub-forum...so they, for all intents and purposes, are not actually mods.

[Ringthane]

I dunno what thread you're reading, but 3 posts is hardly encouraging anything.

It's not as if there's a lot of Rick and Morty at the moment airing to discuss, and the whole morality of the situation was kinda the only thing to discuss.
I do agree that the horse is paste at this point and that's why I said twice I'm not really getting involved in this though. I'm not a mod for this section either so not my place to say if something should stop or not.

You're part of the mod staff and participating in a discussion you admit has gone off the rails. It may not be your place to stop it, but neither is it your place to keep it going. Is anyone going to do anything? Or are we just going to let another thread of three people saying the same thing to each other go on for another 500 pages?

- - - Updated - - -

The difference is that, while this has strayed away from the topic of "Rick and Morty" into a more generealized disccussion about morality...morality itself is not a forbidden topic. The two mods participating are not mods of this particular sub-forum...so they, for all intents and purposes, are not actually mods.

That's weird... Why are there all these split hairs all over the place, and where did they come from?

[Triceron]

That's weird... Why are there all these split hairs all over the place, and where did they come from?

Do we really need to answer to this?

I mean, there's pages of this recorded if you want to really know how it evolved into this.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Do we really need to answer to this?

I mean, there's pages of this recorded if you want to really know how it evolved into this.

I think it's more of a "how did it get so far without any intervention?" question.

[Jester Joe]

You're part of the mod staff and participating in a discussion you admit has gone off the rails. It may not be your place to stop it, but neither is it your place to keep it going. Is anyone going to do anything? Or are we just going to let another thread of three people saying the same thing to each other go on for another 500 pages?

??

I never said that it was off topic, I said the topic is beat dead.

You can DM a global or a mod of this section if you feel the topic is going against the rules at this point and they can make a call on it, that's about the end all of what I could do even

Otherwise the topic has basically been dropped and I'm sure it will start new discussion as new updates come or the new season is released.

[Fabinas]

The difference is that, while this has strayed away from the topic of "Rick and Morty" into a more generealized disccussion about morality...morality itself is not a forbidden topic. The two mods participating are not mods of this particular sub-forum...so they, for all intents and purposes, are not actually mods.

Who says what is forbidden and what is not?

So, interesting OT is allowed, but "forbidden" topics, even when they do stem from the shows are not?

Isn't eschatological a mod of this forum?

Again, not judging, but i need clarification of the rules.