Kobold King
-
Posts
13747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
282
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Kobold King
-
Now I'm imaging Chimera dancing around his base singing "The Art of the Dress." It's every bit as awesome as it sounds.
-
On a scale from 1 to 10, how horrifying would it be if Chimera made a line of them?
-
Did you see the ladypug, or do I have to post it again?
-
With our powers combined . . . We can plan a heist!
Kobold King replied to Sir Jerric's topic in Creator's Corner
Can I enchant the seal of a vault to trigger an incredibly strong sense of revulsion in anyone who perceives it, warding away would-be thieves? Could I do the same but with paralyzing fear or guilt? -
Who is your favorite incarnation of the Doctor? Who is your favorite Doctor Who character who isn't the Doctor? What is your favorite villain on the show?
-
This is a ladypug.
-
It's like taping "Kick me" to someone's back, except instead it would say "Tell me about our lousy service."
-
You should keep a bunch of smiley face stickers on hand to pass out to disgruntled customers. Make sure your smile is just as sticky, if not more so, as theirs when you pass them out.
-
Still Having a Bad Day? Exchange Your Rants For Hugs Here!
Kobold King replied to Silverblade5's topic in General Discussion
And sew an 'A+' into the front so the teacher assumes it's already been graded! It's foolproof! -
I have a philosophy plane.
-
What if characters in hypothetical situations became self-aware entities with actual sentience? Would we have a moral obligation to make all of our hypothetical characters well fleshed out and happy? Would it be immoral to create a hypothetical scenario in which one person suffers, even for a moment? Would we be morally obligated to spend all of our time dreaming up as many blissful utopias as possible, to increase the number of happy people in the metaverse?
-
It's probably best if I leave them for someone else. Or we could make them NPCs and write them in turns--that'd be interesting to see.
-
I don't think you're a monster, but if I'm understanding your arguments correctly, then then you hold that it doesn't matter whether someone's a monster because only their own morality counts. Which means that Nazis or ISIS agents are no more monsters than anyone on this thread. In essence, the argument that morality doesn't exist outside of an individual's own head excuses monsters.
-
As long as both of them are intrinsically opposed to it, then it's merely an example of multiple trains of thought leading to the same ultimately correct conclusion. They could have some pretty interesting conversations about it over coffee, but they'd be foolish to go their separate ways or have a bitter argument over it.
-
Not trying to attack you or drive you away. My apologies for sounding hostile. My point is simply that if we cannot even agree that rape is intrinsically wrong regardless of your perspective, we have no morals in common and cannot continue this conversation. Or at least, if we did there'd be an awful lot of going around in circles.
-
So it's childish to brutally rip a toddler to shreds to prove a point... but not morally repugnant to you. You personally do not enjoy ripping toddlers to shreds... but it is not wrong to do so. I am sorry. I am deeply sorry, and don't take this the wrong way... but I have nothing more to say to you. There is nothing I could say, to a person who believes that raping women is anything less than evil or that slaughtering the innocent is inadvisable but otherwise tolerable. Your ideology is uncentered and allows for the most abhorrent things I can imagine. There is really no further place for a conversation between us to go. Good day to you.
-
What does it matter if you have a heart or not? If you don't believe in morality, it doesn't matter one whit. Being heartless is no worse than being virtuous. Being a rapist is no worse than being a saint. Running a concentration camp is no worse than founding a charity. And a moral code which teaches not to murder or rape or steal only because you'll get in trouble is no moral code at all. It's a pragmatic guide. Morzathoth, the thing is, by your own argument your own moral code doesn't matter. If you're right, then you're completely illogical in being disgusted by eating babies or knocking old ladies down staircases. The fact that you nonetheless are disgusted, the fact that you continue to cling to ethics and use words like "heartless" with contempt, prove that on some level you realize that some things are utterly, irredeemably wrong no matter what the perpetrator thinks. If you could prove your point to us by brutally stabbing a little girl to death, with absolutely no negative repercussions for doing it, would you? Of course you wouldn't. Why not? What's holding you back? If morality is an illusion, why do you still cling to it? We're waiting. Are you going to murder that toddler or not? Could it be that morality isn't as meaningless than you thought?
-
Well, why do you think it's wrong then? If the universe doesn't care, what does it matter? Why aren't you ignoring that pesky conscience and doing whatever you please, stealing, raping, and murdering all the way into town? If there's no such thing as an inherent morality, than all you have is a socially encoded weakness that you should be shucking out of your mind as soon as possible. The fact that you are a good creature who realizes that raping little girls is wrong tells me that on some level, you recognize that there is a morality higher than yourself. If morality is really meaningless, you're a clever enough person to have realized that your reluctance to bash newborn skulls into the pavement is illogical and worthless and should have been discarded long ago. I believe Ted Bundy was a terrible human being for what he did. My belief isn't what matters--what matters is that he harmed others, and that renders him utterly wrong on a cosmic level. Under your argument, a child molester is no less pure and praiseworthy than Mother Teresa, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool with no logical backing. The idea of that appalls me, and I think it appalls you too on some level. And I think you realize that if you chose to become a child molester, the crime would become no less wrong and depraved just because your opinion changed about it. At least I hope you do, because if you really believe with every fiber of your being that if you decided to become a rapist it would be a-okay for you, than you are a far more disturbing individual than I'd pegged you as. And I don't think you're really that depraved, no matter what you say. This is why I believe in moral absolutes. Because if we don't believe in one single moral anchor tethering us to an absolute virtue, than none of the suffering on this planet has any meaning. The mere thought that my ethical worldview has no more meaning than that of a child molester makes me so sick my skin crawls, and I refuse to stand for it. Anyway, I'll be going off to make scrambled eggs for lunch now. I think my side in this argument is pretty much over, because as much as it pains me to say it, if you can say that a serial rapist is no less right or wrong than anyone else on this planet, there's no appeal to decency that I can make because you don't believe decency exists. See you after lunch, guys.
-
He didn't say it was an effectual ban.
-
Those are harsh realities of our world. Things we can try to minimize but never eradicate altogether. That's not our fault. (And for the record, I've posted long rants about the destructive aspects of our current society before. The fact that cities harm wildlife is no news to me. ) What exactly do you think of people like Jack the Killer or Ted Bundy? Do you genuinely believe that there was nothing wrong with what they did? When Bundy abducted and raped teenage girls, was his action no more evil than my eating a hard-boiled egg? I ask because if we cannot agree that the actions of a serial rapist are inherently wrong and utterly unjustifiable from any and all perspectives, I'm afraid we have too little shared ground to carry on a conversation.
-
Maybe he has accelerated healing, but heals faster the faster he travels? So he can only shrug off mortal wounds if he immediately accelerates to supersonic speeds.
-
Good is helping others. Evil is hurting others. Doing neither is just decent. To me, not hurting others is the One Moral Commandment the universe delivers to us. It is not okay to hurt others. If you think it's okay, you're wrong. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is. Hurting others is wrong. The only gray area is hurting someone who is trying to hurt others, thus acting in defense. That is the one time I can accept it as the right thing to do. Every culture on this planet includes some variation of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is the foundation of all other forms of morality, even when superfluous stuff is glued onto it. To violate the Golden Rule, to harm another innocent human being, is the very essence of evil. I hate moral nihilism because it claims that even the Golden Rule is meaningless, and thus implies that technically it's a-okay to slaughter children, rape anyone you like, and steal whatever catches your eye, and the only reason you shouldn't is because society tells you not to. I refuse to subscribe to that brand of morality, or lack thereof.
-
Fair warning: I believe in moral absolutes and am fiercely opposed to moral nihilism and relativism. I also don't believe in "necessary evils." That said...
-
I bet young Hades would be the kind of kid who shows girls that he likes them by kicking sand in their faces and laughing at them. Kipper, did your little brother do that?
-
Plot twist: Kipper and his brother are Zeus and Poseidon.
