/x/ - Paranormal / Occult

That's pretty callous of you tbh. Who are you to judge the value of a life?

>>1458
Who am I to do anything? That seems like a pretty meaningless question to me. It's easy to morally grandstand when it comes to something like this, but you'd be lying if you told me that you don't value some people's lives over others. Would you rather have a stranger die, or a loved family member? If you were forced to pick, which would you? If you could bring somebody back at someone else's expense, would you? The answer to the first two are pretty obvious, but I think those three questions can be expanded to and applied to every person. That's all i'm saying.

>>1457

Why would you want Bradbury or Ramis back? so they can age poorly, start to shit out random crap in futile attempts to stay relevant, and eventually become a parody of themselves?

The fact that people's time run out is the main motivator in them getting something out of this shit world we live in. Be glad they were there, and then move on.

>>1460
There's plenty of people who die before their time. Note the third example. Satoshi Kon is another good one. I'd rather have Satoshi still be alive than Michael Bay.

>>1461

1) Your judgement of taste is purely subjective.
2) Your judgement disregards that those people you loathe so much might also have families and loved ones.
3) No one dies 'before their time'. They die when they die. I'm sure if Kon was here shitting out 'Paprika 4: Electric Boogaloo' you'd be shitting all over him.

There is more, but this should be enough to answer your original question. Is it callous of you to think like you do? yes, it definitely is. Is it normal? probably yes, it's a callous world we live in. Would I? no, I'm not an edgy 14 yo, I've seen enough of life to know it lasts just as long as it needs to.

>>1462
>Your judgement of taste is purely subjective.
I never said that it wasn't, but if you try to tell be that vlogs have as much value as Mobdy Dick, I wont agree with you. I guess the value of entertainment and by extension, people, is subjective, but it still exist. An artist's value might not be objective, but it's real to me and it surely it must be real to you too.
>Your judgement disregards that those people you loathe so much might also have families and loved ones.
Irrelevant.
>No one dies 'before their time'. They die when they die. I'm sure if Kon was here shitting out 'Paprika 4: Electric Boogaloo' you'd be shitting all over him.
There's plenty of people who never stagnant like that. Human imagination is limitless in my opinion. Why would you think Kon would be making Paprika 4? I don't believe that he would do something like that. When I think about all the things he could have made while daily vloggers continue to pump out garbage, it pisses me off.
>I've seen enough of life to know it lasts just as long as it needs to.
I may be calllous, but you seem really cynical about humanity in general. What about scientists? Aren't they objectively worth more than some homeless drug addict?

>>1463
>Your judgement of taste is purely subjective.
>I never said that it wasn't
I'll simply remind you, this is what you believe and your opinions are just as unimportant as anyone elses.

Life affirmation will always be winning in a debate simply because people are afraid to die and they don't wish it upon anyone else.
It's a waste of time because you (or anyone else for that matter) will not be convinced. We have gotten (western culture at least) to the point where we don't despise whole groups anymore and lower their worth to the point where we would wish them dead (at least, the majority/the people who get to decide)

Good day.

>>1464
Again trying to morally grandstand. Appeals to emotion are so obnoxious. Just because things are the way they are, that doesn't mean they have to be that way or that that way is what's best. I'm not just simply wishing death upon entire groups. Don't try and boil down my point by attacking a strawman.

I think that it's human nature to value one person's life over another, for the same reason that you aren't going to a homeless man's funeral, but are bawling your eyes out when a family member dies. It's not that the homeless guy wasn't important, it's that he wasn't important to you. Human's are selfish creatures, and that's neither here or there, it just is.

>>1457
Peaceful buddhism quantified it already in some suttas.

>>1463

>An artist's value might not be objective, but it's real to me and it surely it must be real to you too.

Unsubstantiated appeal to emotion and subjective opinions, also assuming you and I share any point of view.

>Irrelevant.

Just like your unsubstantiated response.

>Human imagination is limitless in my opinion. Why would you think Kon would be making Paprika 4? I don't believe that he would do something like that.

Again, meaningless appeal to subjective opinions and taste. What you 'believe' is irrelevant.

>What about scientists? Aren't they objectively worth more than some homeless drug addict?

Not to the homeless drug addict. 'Objectively' nothing is objective as long as a thinking subject thinks it up.

>>1468
>Unsubstantiated appeal to emotion and subjective opinions, also assuming you and I share any point of view.
I know all of this is subjective. What value is, is subjective. The whole point of this thread was to ask for other people's opinions on something. Also, it seems reasonable for me to assume that you value artists you like more than those you don't. It's like me assuming you don't want to be stabbed through the chest. It's a pretty universal trait.
>Just like your unsubstantiated response.
Nothing in this thread is substantiated. That point was irrelevant because a individual person's worth shouldn't be based on their number of loved ones in my opinion. One individual to another individual without taking anything else into account.
>Again, meaningless appeal to subjective opinions and taste. What you 'believe' is irrelevant.
What is relevant then? Do you really think I mean to mathematically calculate the worth of a person?
>Not to the homeless drug addict. 'Objectively' nothing is objective as long as a thinking subject thinks it up.
To society a scientist is worth much more. Most people would probably agree that a homeless drug addict isn't as important as a scientist, or at least they would think that to them self. I guess instead of, "objective", I should have said to most people. You haven't responded to some of my points. I feel like you're choosing to not engage in my ideas because you disliked them for the first moment.

>>1472

The ideas of yours I choose not to engage are simply not-engageable, because they are philosophically unsound, therefore insignificant.

>>1479
>they are philosophically unsound, therefore insignificant.
>I don't like your ideas, so i'm just going to pretend that they have zero validity and don't warrant discussion
If that's your idea of a response, I doubt you would have much to say about a, "philosophically sound", concept.

Why are we measuring it in the first place?

>>1510
Because people I like die while people I don't like don't.

With a soul exchange, you could bring people like Tesla and Newton back to change the world.

>>1512
That’s the burden of living