bought some salsa with trinidad moruga scorpion peppers in it

wtf

I had a dab of hot sauce with 6 million btu rating once

I choose the light option when I get domino's chicken habenerono sandwich thign I don't like hot stuff but I will eat them on that sandwich for their health benefits but only light

not BTU, SHU hot peppers dont actually produce any heat they bind to receptors on neurons which detect heat,

yeah that's weird how that works I sort of feel like if you had an alchemy table you could make magic potions with peppers because how the fuck does it burn like that when there's no heat you ever think about that it just makes no sense

also hot peppers get you high

Quote:

---

It is common for people to experience pleasurable and even euphoriant effects from ingesting capsaicin. Folklore among self-described "chiliheads" attributes this to pain-stimulated release of endorphins, a different mechanism from the local receptor overload that makes capsaicin effective as a topical analgesic. In support of this theory, there is some evidence that the effect can be blocked by naloxone and other compounds that compete for receptor sites with endorphins and opiates.

---

yeah so does weed and it doesn't fucking hurt lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steveyos

yeah so does weed and it doesn't fucking hurt lol

---

pussy

I decided to neg rep steffies for being a pussy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonman

Despite not being logically supported, the inter-subjective consensus of humans is that life is objectively positive. I believe that when most people tell you not to kill yourself it's because they themselves are also fighting an ontological and psychological struggle and telling you otherwise would go against their own "intellectual dishonesty" where they need to create false hopes about the future to continue to function socially.
You probably should have put "why is a human life worth saving" because you're post seems to focus on the individual. As far as human life as a whole, only a speciest would argue that the most imposing and destructive mammal would be worth saving. I would argue deer would be more worth saving.
Me personally, I try and be a determinist to the core so when you talk ethics my language is a little different. For instance, the subjective opinion of you or the person trying to convince you to stay alive is irrelevant until you have a basis for what "actions" are objectively negative. As a mere example, my philosophy on ethics is all about imposing on sentience. Therefore I advocate veganism(for animal sentience), anti-natalism(for forced non-volunteered future sentience) and non-capitalism(for let's say, class elitism). So going by that, the intent of the individual isn't worth judging ethically until you determine the negative output of the suicidal human. So to me, if you're a lazy, indulgent, existential, glutenous narcissist who doesn't even spend a shred of your life attempting to understand ethics or activism and instead just pollutes the world with the same ignorant hateful offspring then I would say you're non-existence would obviously reduce negatives and would therefore be ethical. This is how I would refute 8732664792's first point. If Ted Bundy asked you if he should commit suicide your nepotistic or speciest and biased emotionally charged feelings have nothing to do with objective fact which seems to evade the overwhelmingly subjective Reddit philosophy comment sections. A nazi not wanting Hitler to commit suicide has nothing to do with ethics, but once again I view speciesm and jingoism objectively.
Subjective ethics aren't ethics.
On another odd note, the same people in my philosophical circles would also say that if you live you're life completely ethically and unimposing(if that's possible) and could possibly influence others to reduce negatives then ending it would prove inefficient to the ethical cause and would therefore be unethical. For me the answer to that lies in time and how influential you are, but many of them would disagree. Anyways, just a different perspective.

---

I'm sorry, can you elucidate specifically which of my points you were refuting?
First point I made was that trying to convince someone does not prevent them from acting on their convictions.
The second point I made, though still in the first paragraph, was that trying to talk someone out of their way is not unethical nor immoral if its impetus is a genuine sense of care for the other person's well being and/or the well being of people around them.
I feel like we might actually be on the same page, but maybe something got lost in communication.

oh

shut up you lizards

i didn't write that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonman

Machiavelli differs from later realists like Hobbes—and more contemporary “neorealists” like the late Kenneth Waltz—in recognizing that human agency matters as much as the structural fact of international anarchy in determining both foreign policy behavior and ultimate outcomes in world politics. Through historical examples of successes and failures, Machiavelli reminds us that individuals matter. Yes, the world is perpetually changing, buffeting the state in all directions. But even if “there’s a Providence that shapes our ends”—as Shakespeare’s Hamlet observes—a leader’s choices can have a pivotal impact on politics, both domestic and international.

Machiavelli explores the interplay between material forces and human agency through the concepts of fortuna and virtu.

All princes (and indeed, all people) are subject to societal and natural factors larger than themselves. Still, “free will cannot be denied,” Machiavelli insists. “Even if fortune is the arbiter of half our actions, she still allows us to control the other half, or thereabouts.” Though fortune be capricious and history contingent, the able leader may shape his fate and that of his state through the exercise of virtu. This is not to be mistaken for “virtue”, as defined by Christian moral teaching (implying integrity, charity, humility, and the like). Rather, it denotes the human qualities prized in classical antiquity, including knowledge, courage, cunning, pride, and strength.

---

In some ways, Breaking Bad was, for me, a hymn to Machiavelli. Walter White – in order to secure his honor as well as his survival – leaves traditional morality and virtues in the desert to seek power and money and respect. And he does so with such brilliance and fortitude and elan that Old Nick himself would have marveled at the spectacle of untrammeled evil and empire building. If a man is truly a man through force and fraud and nerve, then Walter becomes the man he always wanted to be. He trounces every foe; he gains a huge fortune; he dies a natural death. Compared with being a high school chemistry teacher? Niccolo would scoff at the comparison. “I did it for me.”

i didnt write that either although i'm a fan of machiaveli

and no, breaking bad is not a "hymn to machiavelli"; machiavelli was an OG troll, "The Prince" was mocking the new government of florence after they kicked him out of power. Breaking Bad is an ode to fat housewives who want to believe that they're not washed up and non-powerful deep on the inside

"if i suddenly got cancer, i could become a meth dealer! just like the main character in breaking bad" yeah but you wont because youre a fat broken-willed house wife who is too lazy to get off the couch and do anything at all

what's up marks, you want to stand up like a man a debate me on the italian renaissance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonman

marks can make me rant and rave on demand by convincing me that I was already ranting and raving

---

yeah it's like trolling a squirrel there's no challenge in it

yeah you uneducated bitch, sit down, i'm the king baby, you can't intellectually debate this mother fucker

you think it takes me any effort at all to simply toss off paragraphs, bitch, this is effortless, i'm just flaunting my intellectual abilities lmao go on thinking youre trolling me kid, i'm the fucking king baby

*grabs dick*

I didn't read any of that but you're undoubtedly going to be ranting incoherantly for a few hours which means you won't be busy stalking any girls or faking suicide for a while, mission accomplished

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__...07/Moonman.gif

marks sexually assaulted a homless man once, "please fuck me in the ass while i watch and jerk off" he said

i have proof this happened i definitely didnt just make it up

watch this

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

go!

if you love to read detailed analysis of 18th century philosophers written by drug addicts who barely finished high school welp you are in for a treat itt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maks

if you love to read detailed analysis of 18th century philosophers written by drug addicts who barely finished high school welp you are in for a treat itt

---

19th century you fucking dumbshit

you got your lefts from rights mixed up again dumbass *smacks you*