~~Vermin~~

The world seeks to destroy that which does not conform.
Those who thrash against them are vermin.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

-Economically expensive, meaning it increases prices and reduces competition
-Easily curcumvented through free VPNs (proton, opera eg.)
-Deanonymises uses on a mass scale
-Inconvenient
-16 yo's can vote, but cant watch porn or look at "violent" protests

https://t.co/aS7p7wNsvE

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@cossackiiis @AntoniusOhii So clearly your emphasis on "humanity" isn't work, per your own observation.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@cossackiiis @AntoniusOhii Laws. If we criminalise activities which harm us then we can deter them. However, it's based in self-interest, not compassion.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@miromanempire @ReviewsPossum There are no universal human rights.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Jonnymayonaise @Mantispie You're being autistic.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Jonnymayonaise @Mantispie "Without resorting to moralism" is asking to explain it mechanistically, i.e. don't just say X is bad because its bad. The "idealism" point probably refers to baseless moral principles, such as "it hurts people!".

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Jonnymayonaise @Mantispie It is an insult. They failed to understand what was being asked.

Most people have absolutely no reasoning behind their moral positions. They literally cannot explain what their own view means outside of a shallow parroting.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Jonnymayonaise @Mantispie I explained to OP what was being asked of them. What your saying here is purely semantic.

https://t.co/OTJXcUx5QW

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Mantispie They're asking you to explain it mechanistically, i.e. expand "bad" into something actually meaningful.

If someone disagreed, how would you convince them?

The purpose is to use an extreme example to show whether or not you're too retarded to defend it.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Jonnymayonaise @Mantispie I claimed that you should be able to explain what "bad" means, which I have. I didn't need to resort to some abstract moral theory, simply my own experience and values.

Note that if I could attain my goals without cooperation then killing would become viable again.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Matthias_Prdctn @BigBoris_2 Those are all aspects of a fully developed human, which we aren't talking about.

You can't retroactively apply value created from a later stage onto an earlier stage.

If two creatures are near identical during a developmental stage, there should be no bias between them.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@NepsisVT @BozoProzo The point is that pretending my actual precludes all others actions is retarded and not at all how the world actually works.

If you reject someone, that doesn't mean everyone will, and it's stupid to pretend otherwise. Let alone use it as the basis of your action.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Matthias_Prdctn @BigBoris_2 You haven't actually provided any reason for why we should value humans over other creatures during a developmental stage when they are very similar.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@nchobby24 @BigBoris_2 My argument is on the basis that they are virtually identical, not simply visually identical. The expression of genes during development will lead many creatures to be similar to humans, not just visually but epigenetically.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@ZELLKLUMPEN "It's okay to kill non-humans because well... it just is!"

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Fabled_is_me @BigBoris_2 Furries aren't virtually identical to animals.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Jonnymayonaise @Mantispie Morality is a socially evolved phenomenon. The closer some aspect is to being universally observed, the more mechanistically explainable it is. Murder is the simplest.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@Jonnymayonaise @Mantispie P1: I want to live.
P2: I am not special.
C1: To ensure my survival I must move towards a system that ensures the survival of everyone.
P3: A system that allows murder is unlikely to ensure survival.
C2: I want a system where murder is disincentivised through a legal system.

[~~Vermin~~ @_Vermin_]

@nchobby24 @BigBoris_2 P1: X is okay to kill.
P2: Y is virtually identical to X.
C: There's no good reason to kill X and not Y.

My argument relies on the fact that you already believe it okay to kill non-human life, so your conception isn't entirely accurate.