SlashTechSamurai (Commission's open)

This Twitter is dedicated to posting artwork set in the fictional world of Aeris 5. A planet that humanity colonized in the very far-flung future. Content adding to this large expansive universe will be added at least once a week. #art #scfi #Newserie

>Education system is built for women >Marriage system is built for women >HR is filled with women, women get preferable treatment when it comes to hiring The world is built by simps who cater to everything women want and it's still not enough for them.

The most effeminate Superman ever to hit the TV screen. Nothing competes with the 1996 (TAS) and the Justice League interpretation of the character.

@gameralphabeta With some awesome VO covering Nyra! Thank you for the spot light!

武装勢力 #このタグを見た人は4文字で自己紹介する

Christian pro lifers adopt at ten times the rate of other groups. You imposing your moral failings on others doesn’t make it right to murder the unborn.

Did you know when X-Men 92 aired in Japan, they comissioned a new anime-exclusive opening for it. This looks absolutely amazing and features events, stories, and scenes that weren't even in the actual show. This OP is actually insane.

When I was a little kid I had just got unlimited internet access and one of the first things I saw was “kill all men” trending. At that point my misogyny started blooming.

@Black_D_Gamer1 I just wish it had a better combat system

Square Enix sank millions into this engine & only released 3 games with it. I truly think this would've done wonders for Square Enix, had they kept this engine for all their current & upcoming games. Proprietary engines are a different breed.

They absolutely do, not only do they treat boys like defective girls, they actively advocate for medicating boys and giving them Adderall because they simply don't want to sit down in a chair for 6 hours. Schools are inherently designed to create conformity within a populist, this is absolutely antithetical to the nature of boys because they are largely independent and individual.

@blackkfcworrior @slashtechsam @Critical_Scribe Schools don't do that at all though

The phrase is meant to say “boys will take risks and do foolish things, but they will learn from it.” This association with violence is pure projection on your part. Boys not being allowed to be boys plays a massive part in younger men feel absolutely awful about themselves. All these attempts to subvert biological nature instead of refine it have done horrendous things to younger generations and it’s always done with this “moral goodness” facade. It’s toxic, through and through.

My reasoning comes from a Christian worldview. God calls us to suffer to do what is right. Suffering oftentimes means the denial of self pleasure and desire. Abstaining from excess amount of food causes suffering, but that suffering is for a greater good. So suffering in and of itself isn't bad. It's neutral, it depends on the outcome. Unless you're saying that God calls us to do something that is bad. Which doesn't make sense.

@9INE0hS8NT @ptr_to_gabriel @slashtechsam @CCanuck4 this is why I said there are multiple attempts at demonstrating why it's bad, and I haven't made a point on why I believe that's the case (your crosses indicate Christianity which is why I brought up divine command theory) the main point was the stupidity of the other guys claim

Yes, smart guy, you do in fact need to say why suffering is bad if you're arguing ethics.

@hankypankyspa54 @CCanuck4

@slashtechsam @CCanuck4 I think you KNOW what is meant by suffering you're just cherrypicking examples

@ImWatchingYoou @CCanuck4 Do you think that an anorexic person is going to benefit from a zero calorie sweet treat? Or are they going to need some calories in order to get back to the healthy weight?

@slashtechsam @CCanuck4 I like how you acknowledge that your analogy is dogshit by saying calories are good actually. But if you could have a zero calorie sweet treat from time to time, wouldn't that be great? Why hasn't anyone thought of that??

It's clearly not zero-sum, because I just listed an example where you went through suffering in order to become healthier and gain stronger muscles. Yes if we lived in the future or in some far off distant paradise, we could get all of the beneficial stuff that would make our lives happy and healthy without needing to ever suffer. But like I said to other people, there are some things that you want there to be suffering for, in order for the accomplishment to mean more, or for your body to tell you when something is wrong or bad. Suffering literally also builds character because it can mean literally anything that's discomforting.

@slashtechsam @SandDerelict @CCanuck4 also, sometimes pain is zero-sum. a bear eating a deer is necessary for its survival, but the deer went through an immense amount of pain for it to be accomplished.

My definition which is literally the dictionary definition? There's a reason why several philosophers say "life is suffering" again you have proven the previous responders point correct, YOU are the definitional outlier. Because you don't subscribe to the definition of suffering, that doesn't mean that what I stated isn't literally the definition of suffering.

@pepperjackmack @slashtechsam @CCanuck4 It's not handwaving away. Conflating surgery for cancer and soreness from working out are apples and oranges. The definition he uses broadens suffering so wide as to include the entirety of the human experience, which I don't subscribe to.

I already said multiple times that suffering could be good or bad depending on the situation. One of the other reasons why doctors want to put you under is so that you don't shift around to increase the chances of the procedure going well. Again, suffering is dependent on the context and outcome. I'd much rather suffer the recovery of a successful tumor removing surgery, then suffer the death of the tumor. If the tumor could be removed painlessly without any suffering, that would be ultimately preferable, but that's not the world we currently live in, so the best Outlook is to look at suffering as something that is, rather than being ontologically good or evil. As I've said with other people, there are some kinds of suffering you don't want to remove, because it would inherently devalue the accomplishment of a thing. Like climbing Mount Everest

@slashtechsam @CCanuck4 if you brand it as neutral then youll need to give another reason why removing a tumor is neccesary

The definition I cited includes all forms and all levels of discomfort and inconvenience. That is literally the definition of suffering. Whether you regard it as real suffering or not is up to you, but that's not the definition I'm using. To answer your question, yes reducing suffering is a good thing in this case. It's preferable that we can remove the tumor without causing a ton of suffering. But like I've been stating and restating, suffering is morally neutral, it's the ultimate result of the suffering that matters. If there was no way to remove the tumor other than to cause an immense amount of pain, I would choose the immense amount of pain removing the tumor then no pain and the tumor ultimately kills me. Reducing suffering in other situations might not be a good thing though. There are accomplishments that only are meaningful because there's a great amount of suffering attached to them. In order for you to climb Mount Everest you must suffer a great deal in order to achieve that feat. But ultimately that accomplishment gives you massive amounts of accolades and builds tremendous amounts of character and perseverance. If it was super easy to climb Mount Everest Not only would there be no accolades associated with it, but it could not possibly build the amount of character that it would if you had suffered through it.

@slashtechsam @pepperjackmack @CCanuck4 Your definition as you mentioned previously included putting up with mildly annoying people, which this conversation has only strengthened my resolve that suffering is not a good itself. If a tumor could be removed and the surgery caused little suffering is that not preferable?

I am not confused on my definition I literally use the dictionary definition of suffering. Moreover, let's say hypothetically the tumor was in your brain and you didn't feel it until it was too late and you died instantly. It's not the pain that was the problem, it was the tumor itself that needed to be removed. I would much rather choose the pain of having a tumor removed in order to preserve my life, rather than the non-pain of it remaining in my brain to kill me in an instant

@pepperjackmack @TheEzMackGaming @CCanuck4 THANK YOU

@TheEzMackGaming @slashtechsam @CCanuck4 All of those fit the definition, and the source of the posted definition is reputable, it's you who's the vocabulary outlier here. There's no point in the argument when every example of suffering that has long-term positive effects is handwaved away as "not real suffering".

Notice how in my post I clearly made a distinction between murder and killing. At least in my worldview killing can absolutely be a good thing, depending on the context. Are you telling me that it's wrong to kill a chicken in order to save myself from starvation, or to kill someone in order to prevent them from hurting others? What specific religion are you talking about? Because it's most certainly not christianity.

@slashtechsam @CarlaTaggarty @CCanuck4 Bro literally said "killing can sometimes be good" as if it's an intrinsic fact. Many philosophies and religions believe killing is never good/morally justified.

@babyJAMR @CCanuck4 They quite literally are. Suffering is a very wide category of things. What gets conflated though, is the level of discomfort and length of time that we collectively call "suffering"

@slashtechsam @CCanuck4 Neither one of the things you listed are forms of suffering 😭