Specific arrangements of matter and energy are illegal

Essentialist pls go.
Your "philosophy" is literally medieval.

Your fallacy today is:
>Argumentum ad hominem
How about you address the argument, rather than simply attempting to dismiss it as to gain the 'apparent' high-ground.

>YOU CAN'T DO THIS
>zero argument as to why
>BBBBBUUUUTT LE FALLLAAAACCCYYY
Nigger I don't have to have measured the sun temperature to talk about something "hotter than a burning charcoal", even though I've never touched anything hotter than a burning charcoal in my life.

Argumentum ad hominem are only a fallacy when they are irrelevant to the discussion. You're literally too much of a dumb ape to have a discussion on the science board. Pls go and stay go.

Ah yes, because arguments about morality rather than physical objects are exactly the same. :^)

t.
>Compares apples to rocks.
>Muh intelligence,
>Muh superiority.
I'm the dumb ape? Sure buddy, sure. :^)

Postscriptum: It wasn't relevant to the argument as you didn't even attempt to address the argument, just decided to attack me.

>specific arrangements of matter and energy are illegal
Well what the fuck ELSE would be illegal?
Once you accept the notion of laws,you accept the notion of "specific arrangements of matter and energy" being illegal,

>despite various technologies being able to be easily produced and distributed they will never see the light of day
I'm gonna need an example of what you're taking about (besides bongs, of course).

>its all because the majority of us are too stupid to be trusted with them
Not exactly.

>How do we fix the human race, Veeky Forums?
In your specific case, I'd recommend smoking less weed.

>morality
NIGGER WHO THE FUCK TALKED ABOUT MORALITY
PHYSICAL STRENGTH, RESILIENCE, BRAIN POWER ARE ALL MEASURABLE
FUCK OFF WITH YOUR HUHHHUHHURHURHURHURHUR YOU CAN'T NO NUTHIN PHILOSOSHIT

I FUCKING DESTROYED YOUR ARGUMENT, YOU DON'T NEED AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING BETTER TO DEFINE BETTER NOW GO CRY TO YOUR MOM YOU FUCKING SHITTER

What? How would anything physical fix the current situation, you would need to address it on a moral level. The fact you don't understand that, when he clearly mentions the legality of certain objects and the fact some humans "aren't trusted", that sort of points toward the metaphysical. And guess what, you can't measure that? :^)

Smart-arse isn't so smart. I love it when the faux-intellectual get antsy because they can't comprehend what they're attempting to argue.

There is no "fix."

Im a christian, thats about as "fixed" as it gets, despite the fact we were made sinners.

>I FUCKING DESTROYED YOUR ARGUMENT
Autistic Tantrum the Post.

STILL ABSOLUTELY ZERO ARGUMENT AS TO WHY YOU NEED AN ESSENCE TO DEFINE A SCALE
I PROVIDED A COUNTER EXAMPLE TO THE GENERAL ARGUMENT, NOW IF YOU WANT TO STILL DEFEND YOUR RETARDED POINT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND COME UP WITH AN ARGUMENT AS TO WHY MORAL SCALES SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE ESSENTIALS
YOU CAN'T JUST WAGGLE YOUR THINKER AND SAY "NUH UH MORAL SCALES ARE DIFFERENT" MY RETARDED SUMMER KID

ALL I HEAR IS YOU COMPLAINING

1: Turn off caps, it makes you look like a bigger autist than you want to portray yourself as.

2: Stop with the ad hominem, when you argument is more insult than argument people tend to think you're a raging Asperger.

3: If you consider the current society to be degenerate, what are you comparing that to? How do you think that your society isn't the 'best it can get' without seeing what the best is. All you can do is make arbitrary changes, until you are happy with the result. In other words, you can't form a master plan, without a blueprint, if you don't know what the blueprint is... I'll let your autism try and figure the rest of that statement out for you.

>How do you think that your society isn't the 'best it can get' without seeing what the best is.
BECAUSE EXTRAPOLATION IS A THING US NON MONKEY CAN PERFORM

NO I WON'T TURN OFF THE CAPS, THIS ISN'T A SERIOUS DISCUSSION, YOU DON'T DESERVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION. THIS IS Veeky Forums AND NOT /MEDIEVAL METAPHYSICS/
KYS YOUR SELF

So, you consider the current society to be degenerate?

How are you drawing that conclusion?

The only way of doing that, is to compare it to an earlier state, such as Victorian Britain and see that technologically and economically we are superior and that those outdated moral values, whilst seeming virtuous wouldn't function within postmodern society.

But then, with that comparison you note that you're wrong, that postmodern society is superior to the previous society and that your earlier 'extrapolation' was false.

If you simply:
>Muh EXTRAPOLATION!!!!!! XD >:^D
You may draw an incorrect conclusion and assume it to be correct without evidence.

That's why you need something to be able to compare the different states to.

I would add a caution that "better" is entirely subjective.
Plenty of "Social Darwinists" would see all progress of civilization as bad.

You get my point though?

IF YOU ADMIT AS YOU JUST DID THAT WE ARE BETTER OFF TODAY THAN IN AN EARLIER ERA YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED THE EXISTENCE OF A SCALE, NO NEED FOR ESSENTIALS
NO THAT DOESN'T IMPLY THAT TODAY IS THE ABSOLUTE END OF THAT SCALE YOU FAGGOT

Is your reading comprehension that poor?

>You get my point though?
Oh, of course.
I've often claimed I'd rather be a poor man in the 21st century than a rich man in the 19th.
Consider dentistry alone.
Not to mention health care in general, central air conditioning, brownies, x-box, modern education and smart-phones.

In that case, since I've already tried, could you try explaining it to this literally raging autist?

NO IT'S GOING PRETTY WELL THANK YOU
I JUST HAVE TO SIT AND STAND THERE WHILE YOU'RE RUNNING AROUND IN CIRCLE MAKING ARGUMENTS LIKE "OH YOU MUST THINK THAT SOCIETY IS DEGENERATE TODAY" WITH LITERALLY ZERO EVIDENCE FOR IT. THAT SAYS LENGTH ABOUT HOW YOU FORM YOUR SHIT OPINIONS

I CANNOT FATHOM HOW FUCKING RETARDED YOU ARE ACTING RIGHT NOW
LEAVE

1: You are arguing in favour of OP's premise, therefore, I assume you accept the same conclusion that our postmodern society is degenerate.

2: I never implied an absolute of a possibly infinite scale, there is no need to do so.

3: I honestly don't think it is, if you're misreading any of this as an absolute limit. :^)

4: Circular reasoning? You're the only one using this to provide affirmation for your fallacy.

5: I made no argument that postmodern society is degenerate, that is OP you're thinking of: . Do note, this only proves your lack of reading comprehension.

6: I'm going to leave a publicly accessible website, not owned by you, because you demand I do? How about no. :^)

>In that case, since I've already tried, could you try explaining it to this literally raging autist?

I think he's more concerned with the direction society is going, than setting a goal.
Maybe that's why he thinks we don't need a relative scale.

The big problem with that is that things could always be better (or worse), so without a scale, you could describe any situation as bad (or good).
A lesser problem is that without a scale, he's convinced himself things are not improving, when they clearly are,

Hope this helps.

That helps a lot, thank you, user.

>I never implied an absolute of a possibly infinite scale, there is no need to do so.
YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT WAS THAT YOU NEED AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING BETTER TO DEFINE BETTER, WHICH IS LITERALLY CAVEMAN REASONING
WHICH IS FUCKING WRONG SINCE YOU ONLY NEED TWO POINTS TO DEFINE A SCALE

I never implied a limit though. Not to mention, you change your argument from post to post to fit a slightly reworked premise.

WHO'S CHANGING HIS POINT YOU SHITEATER?
YOUR POST DIDN'T CHANGE, IT'S WRITTEN WHITE ON BLACK YOU THINK YOU CAN'T DEFINE "BETTER" WITHOUT AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING BETTER
YOU'RE LITERALLY LESS THAN HUMAN FOR USING SUCH A PRIMITIVE REASONING

1: You went from denying a scale even existed, to accepting an infinite scale and accusing me of "setting a limit", when I did no such thing.

2: You're right, my post didn't change, yours did. Though, simply further proves your lack of reading comprehension than you don't know the difference between the words "you" and "I".

3: You literally have no idea what is going on, do you?

>You went from denying a scale even existed
JESUS YOU'RE GETTING MORE RETARDED BY THE SECOND
END YOURSELF
I'M NOT READING THE REST OF THAT BRAIN PUKE

Go back and read your post and then ask your parents to head it to you and so until you understand how little consistency you have.

Go back and read your post and then ask your parents to read it to you and so until you understand how little consistency you have.

He's right though. A better world for you could be absolutely miserable for someone else. I guess you could make the world better for the most amount of people possible, but even then for some it would be worse than the world today. It's way to subjective and undefinable

>u can't no nuthin
no
besides the guy isn't even contesting that you can judge "good", fuck off with that

>I'll even argue in the face of consensus.
What is wrong with you?

It's illegal for the human form to have an excess level of melanin. That's why police shoot people who do.