Getting AIDS -
- Thread starter Łimønča
- Start date
This is a thread for the philosophical inquiry into AIDS and whether or not it's intrinsically based or cringe. I think its cringe, but what if you get AIDS while inside a Dollar Store shopping for metal pans? Idk about that one bro.
I'm gonna have to consult saucer-god on that one.
Tleilaxian
kiwifarms.net
- Highlight
- #4
Taking anonymous bareback loads in the aisles of the Dollar Store is pretty cringe as well bro, ngl.
AIDS proves that sodomites are savages unable to quench their thirst for cock, to the point that they'll spread a pandemic without care. And junkies should be shot.
I agree. However, there should be an elite class of degenerate god-kings that rule over the 99% and do phuccy phuccy and expunge philosophical truths out of their shafts.
DumbDude42
kiwifarms.net
insurance should not cover aids meds
let them degenerates rot
let them degenerates rot
But what about Super Saiyan Aids? Also this thread might give some readers Aids by virtue of how gay it is....just saying.
Hang on -
What exactly are you asking here?
- Is the question "is getting AIDS based or cringe"?
- Or is the question "is AIDS based or cringe"?
If you wish to have a philosophical inquiry into the nature of AIDS, then we must first understand what it is we are asking.
AIDS is for faggots.
People starting threads with just "Discuss" should be put in timeout tbh.
The question rather is "is getting AIDS based or cringe?".
Would you rather suggest that there is nothing intrinsically based or cringe about getting AIDS? I'm not a philosophy major, but I can try to have this discussion. We should instead have a discussion about whether an act resting upon the existence of a thing in relation to that act can have an inseparable quality to it, and whether it can be an ethical one at that, such as being based (good, true, awoken) or cringe (bad, false, blinded).
What if you're injected with AIDS by (((CIA))) after running down 88 glowniggers with your van? That would be pretty based.
So I started typing up something about whether or not n act or an object can be intrinsically based or cringe, from my own perspective as a lukewarm deontologist. However, while drafting it out, I realized I was getting on to, like, five paragraphs of sheer autism, which given the shitpost nature of the GD forum, is in itself quite cringe. In accordance with the categorical imperative to act in a based manner, I shall instead present a brief outline of my current position vis-a-vis the question of intrinsic basedness:
- For a given act or object (x), I believe the condition of basedness and not-basedness (cringe) to be extrinsic to x itself.
- The basedness of x is derived, not from the inseparable qualities of x, but from a set of rules delineating that which is based from that which is cringe.
- I believe that the basedness of x can be analyzed objectively, in the sense that - for a given a set of rules delineating that which is based from that which is cringe, we might evaluate whether x satisfies those rules.
- However, in regards to the moral dimension of basedness, where we assume that "the based" is synonymous with "the good", I tend to agree with GE Moore in that "the based" would an emotive judgement and indefinable. (is the based the good? Is the cringe the bad? How can we resolve things when, for example, a soyboy would define "the woke" (i.e. "the cringe") as the good, and "the based" as "the cringe" (or the bad)? I am not a moral relativist, but I must admit, as a non-philosophy major myself, it is a complex question that I may be unequipped to fully answer.)
As for the question, "is getting AIDS based or cringe?", I think the most obvious answer is cringe. I think a case can be made that AIDS itself can be based, in the sense that AIDS - actually, shit, you know what? Hang on. Let me just finish this point - AIDS itself can be based, in the sense that AIDS can, and most often does, fulfill a set rules delineating that which is based from that which is cringe. i.e. killing troons is based, AIDS kills troons, ergo AIDS is based.
Now, I was about to say that getting AIDS is cringe, on the grounds that the act of getting AIDS almost always involves actions that fulfill a set of criteria for cringe. While there may be certain rare outlier actions (again, I maintain that basedness is extrinsic to the act; each act much be evaluated for basedness on its own), the majority of actions proximate to AIDS contraction (or more specifically, proximate to HIV contraction) are cringefests like sharing needles, getting blood transfusions, and buttsex in a San Francisco bathhouse.
However, as I'm writing about AIDS itself being based, it dawns on me that getting AIDS might be a really elegant case of consequentialism vs non-consequentialism. After all, while the virtues underlying the acts which precipitate AIDS are mostly cringe (sinning against God is cringe, getting pozloaded is a sin, ergo getting pozloaded is cringe), the consequences of getting AIDS tend to be based (they are not universally based, as for example, the need to increase taxes or insurance prices in order to offset the costs of AIDS medication, which is cringe and even cucked, but I think of the balance it's fair to say they are based).
I guess the answer will hinge on how you construct your Theory of Basedness. Are you a utilitarian? A virtue-ethicist? In order to evaluate the basedness of getting AIDS, we'd need to settle this first (or at least be clear on what Theory of Basedness we are using in any given post; as per my earlier points regarding intrinsicity above, it may be fruitless to seek a universal answer. If we have different sets of rules delineating that which is based from that which is cringe, then each set of rules may have it's own distinct answer).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
