The comic is making the joke that because humanity is so bad, cthulhu will commit global genocide.
your argument, in response to my comment that condemns global genocide, is that cthulhu largely makes good points points.
for global genocide.
you’re defending the reasoning for global genocide.
“To justify Cthulhu’s premise is to not to justify his conclusion.”
his conclusion is inextricably tied to his premise, and you pointedly did not separate the two in your comments until I pointed out to you that you are defending genocide.
“I left the logical connection between the two unexamined.”
you say “all the rest could theoretically apply” referring to your agreement with cthulhu’s reasonings for global genocide.
his conclusion is inextricably tied to his premise, and you pointedly did not separate the two in your comments until I pointed out to you that you are defending genocide.
It is not inextricable. From a utilitarian perspective, for example, humanity could still produce far more utility that it’s many indiscretions remove.
It was not pointed - it was merely omitted for the sake of expediency, along with commentary on the fictional nature of Cthulhu, or the fact that in cannon he does not speak English.
you say “all the rest could theoretically apply” referring to your agreement with cthulhu’s reasonings for global genocide.
To say “could theoretically” is not the same as “does” - there are many ethical systems that have been proposed.
it is within the context of the comic and my comment, which your comment is responding to.
“it was merely omitted for the sake of expediency…”
you made a whoopsie and defended genocide, that is what I’ve been saying.
I don’t think you’re a terrible person, you got caught up in the hip cynicism of the mob in the comments and agreed with them that genocide is justifiable.
I disagree.
“…there are many ethical systems that have been proposed.”
and yet you identified with the justifications for global genocide.
At no point in the past week have I supported genocide, and defending part of an argument is not defending the whole. Nor do I expect most to read it that way in such a jocular setting.
cthulhu decides to commit indiscriminate genocide because of humanity’s violent acts.
a human agrees.
that is the comic.
because cynicism is hip and internet comments are supposed to be edgy rather than thoughtful, people are defending genocide without understanding what they are agreeing with, as you have.
most people don’t realize what they’re doing, but you and the other commenters are nodding along with the non-joke that everybody should be killed because humanity has problems.
that’s not a joke, that’s irresponsible defeatist anxiety.
The joke is that Cthulhu is usually unreasonable (at least by human standards), but is able to logically explain himself to the satisfaction of the human shown. This is unexpected.
I’ll leave you with this: cynicism is hip, but it’s exactly as irrational to start with optimism. You’ve got to start with what is, and what ought to be and work from there.
“cynicism is hip, but it’s exactly as irrational to start with optimism.”
being cynical doesn’t help anyone or anything. being optimistic does help things.
“You’ve got to start with what is, and what ought to be and work from there.”
this is what I do.
you and the others defending “reasonable” genocide is not working toward what “ought to be”, unless you believe that what “ought to be” is giving up on life or some drastic action like global genocide (which is also giving up)
“I robustly defended humanity being unsavory.”
defending a position that nobody is attacking.
“I did not robustly defend genocide.”
The comic is making the joke that because humanity is so bad, cthulhu will commit global genocide.
your argument, in response to my comment that condemns global genocide, is that cthulhu largely makes good points points.
for global genocide.
you’re defending the reasoning for global genocide.
“To justify Cthulhu’s premise is to not to justify his conclusion.”
his conclusion is inextricably tied to his premise, and you pointedly did not separate the two in your comments until I pointed out to you that you are defending genocide.
“I left the logical connection between the two unexamined.”
you say “all the rest could theoretically apply” referring to your agreement with cthulhu’s reasonings for global genocide.
you explicitly make that connection.
It is not inextricable. From a utilitarian perspective, for example, humanity could still produce far more utility that it’s many indiscretions remove.
It was not pointed - it was merely omitted for the sake of expediency, along with commentary on the fictional nature of Cthulhu, or the fact that in cannon he does not speak English.
To say “could theoretically” is not the same as “does” - there are many ethical systems that have been proposed.
“It is not inextricable.”
it is within the context of the comic and my comment, which your comment is responding to.
“it was merely omitted for the sake of expediency…”
you made a whoopsie and defended genocide, that is what I’ve been saying.
I don’t think you’re a terrible person, you got caught up in the hip cynicism of the mob in the comments and agreed with them that genocide is justifiable.
I disagree.
“…there are many ethical systems that have been proposed.”
and yet you identified with the justifications for global genocide.
At no point in the past week have I supported genocide, and defending part of an argument is not defending the whole. Nor do I expect most to read it that way in such a jocular setting.
I don’t think you’re a terrible person either.
Yes you have, and yes it is in the context of what you’re defending.
it’s good that you have faith in people to misunderstand what you’ve written for what you have come to assert you mean.
“…in such a jocular setting.”
The jocular context of punitive global genocide based on reasoning you and other commenters find “actually” sound.
I mean, supported in the personal belief sense. I can assure you that it was never intended, even if that was accidentally conveyed.
Natural language is inherently imprecise. It only works because there’s shared background to interpret it on.
Dark humour is a thing, you’ll see it everywhere on the internet - I’m sure you know that. This is no exception.
there is not much of a joke here.
cthulhu decides to commit indiscriminate genocide because of humanity’s violent acts.
a human agrees.
that is the comic.
because cynicism is hip and internet comments are supposed to be edgy rather than thoughtful, people are defending genocide without understanding what they are agreeing with, as you have.
most people don’t realize what they’re doing, but you and the other commenters are nodding along with the non-joke that everybody should be killed because humanity has problems.
that’s not a joke, that’s irresponsible defeatist anxiety.
I prefer to rage against the dying of the light.
The joke is that Cthulhu is usually unreasonable (at least by human standards), but is able to logically explain himself to the satisfaction of the human shown. This is unexpected.
I’ll leave you with this: cynicism is hip, but it’s exactly as irrational to start with optimism. You’ve got to start with what is, and what ought to be and work from there.
that’s not the joke.
“cynicism is hip, but it’s exactly as irrational to start with optimism.”
being cynical doesn’t help anyone or anything. being optimistic does help things.
“You’ve got to start with what is, and what ought to be and work from there.”
this is what I do.
you and the others defending “reasonable” genocide is not working toward what “ought to be”, unless you believe that what “ought to be” is giving up on life or some drastic action like global genocide (which is also giving up)