Comments by "Deus Ex Homeboy" (@DeusExHomeboy) on "Big Think"
channel.
-
64
-
44
-
17
-
14
-
13
-
11
-
That is the herd morality. Where humans abandon truth, and instead, for comfort's sake, end up creating a morality that serves their own herd, rather than the morality that is aligned with reality, one that shows them how wrong they are. Like how in most human societies it is acceptable to eat an animal simply for taste, but ironically, you can suffer prosecution if you kill the animal publicly and slowly. And there are special exceptions to the animals that society uses to please itself without eating them, like dogs and cats. Of course, there are also societies that enjoy eating cats and dogs, like in South East Asian regions.
11
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
This dumbfuck would rather have a "Narrative" based on Jesusy values that are INHERENTLY DECEPTIVE, AND DEGENERATIVE TO HUMAN NATURE, because it is based on archaic "information" that people had 2,000 years ago and earlier, rather than accept the inherent "unnarrated nature" of the universe. AND THENNN, learn to CREATE meaning for one's own existence, based on REALITY. He instead, just loses his fucking mind because there is NO PRESET SET OF RULES FOR HIM TO LIVE BY, so he screams "OBVIOUSLY Christianity is the ANSWER because it tells us what to do!!" He wants his hand held through existence, how afraid he is of the inherent chaos of being alive lol, he seems traumatized.
IF you are a dedicated fanboy of him, someone who IDOLIZES this person leaving no room for imperfection, you will simply think I am just a mad hater troll leftard, but you fail to understand that ALMOST ALL OF THIS MAN'S SENSE OF REALITY, IS DERIVED FROM A FUCKING FAIRY TALE.
He has FAILED the principles of philosophy and skeptical thought.
However, I must commend him on standing up against the whole "Pronoun Crisis" in his country, but now people have put him on a pedestal, and he is not looking to correct his own DELUSIONS anytime soon. He is a poor choice for direction in life. He will send you somewhere, but you might as well try to become the wizard of Oz, they're EQUALLY DETACHED FROM THE REAL WORLD.
5
-
WHAT?!!!! That's bullshit, He keeps giving new comedy material anytime he leaves the privacy of his handlers. You alt cuckers are just tryna use a less blatantly passive aggressive statement than "we hate the jokes, makes us uneasy, we cant attack you directly", so now you insult them by calling them old? How dare u sir those jokes are completely youthful and crisp fresh out the dankmine. Then we have Barple Blarp kind of people who never had a decent positive male figure in their lives, so now they gotta think they're one with the president (even though his and anyone's vote was worthless because he lost majority vote and was selected by the 'electoral college' (LOL, by rules it sounds like something you'd keep by law, if you wanted the option to OVERTURN THE PEOPLE'S VOTE IN A DEMOCRACY, if not convenient lolllllll)
I mean, almost 50% usa citizens are fucking obese lol, I'm sure Donald's not the first problem they'll internalize and let further shit on their existence and further make the people into a product.
4
-
4
-
Correction, it is EITHER good OR evil. There is no such thing as a decent bad man, or a foul decent man lel. The SUM OF ALL of an individual's actions become its morality, it either falls on good, or evil. Don't worry, pals, we're not the generation upon whom the duty lies to be fully moral, the best we can be expected, given our current biological state and surroundings, is to be as little evil as we can, while being as good as we can.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's actually pathetic, to be "Proud" of and finding "Identity" in SOMETHING YOU WERE BORN WITH AND HAD NO FUCKING EFFORT INTO BECOMING! Holy Fuck!! What is it with this specie, latching on to the most asinine of concept, and being fucking blind to observable reality. The idea is to make you EQUAL, not to make it something to feel SPECIAL ABOUT. Fuck. The idea is to not have non cis genders(i think this is correct terminology) be oppressed in various aspects of life. Go and understand true worth of all life, instead of simply spend your days basking in the majesty of how gay or not gay, or confused you are, and how proud you are to be so, like you had to climb a fucking mountain to achieve your sexuality.
I know it is difficult at times. But believe me, even the oppressed oppress other lives blindly, so don't assume like I "Owe" someone certain respect, when this "human" conversation only spans within the human bubble of existence. pop.
edit: Am I the 420'th comment? sweg
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@harman5453 From what I've seen in the years I've follower Jordan, he certainly seemed to want Fame.
His "opposition" of Bill C-16 was a red herring. He made a boogeyman out of it and mislead people in regards to what it actually was. Before that, he was a provocateur on the occasional news shows he would join the panels of.
A little over a year after his launch into the spotlight, he launched his " lazily written self-help" book, 12 rules for life An "antidote to chaos". While suffering from chaos in a multitude of ways in his own life. And still claiming that the book works.
He debated Slavoj Zizek on Marx's philosophy, and communism, while having done no research. He debated Sam Harris multiple times while having done no research . He made absurd claims such as "western civilization is only possible due to Judeo Christian beliefs/stories.
Total absurdity.
Not once in his life he dared to try look reality in the face. His whole schtick was "If it helps you in life, doesn't matter if it's factually true. It's true for you."
And that led him to where he is today. A famous, mostly(strangely) loved and praised public figure, a multimillionaire, while being totally decimated in his mind and body.
Stories can only take you so far. And over reliance on them, is no less harmful than being an unhygenic crack addict.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
atreyu119 Sheesh, guess you really want the D.
Premise: You humans, and the animals you humans eat, both possess the ability to experience reality subjectively, Which exists because of the Brain, and the central nervous system. WHICH IS SHARED. The Traits that Species share, are in almost all cases, traits that develop at a stage where the trait sharing species were one. The times where this is Not The case, like bats evolving wings after separating from aves(birds), the traits STILL PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION. Plants, all plants, and any other form of life, is DEVOID OF THIS TRAIT OF SENTIENCE. Sentience is the PREMISES OF MORAL CONSIDERATION. NON-SENTIENT things do not. The only difference, is the presence of an organ which Functions to provide the organism with sentience.
Conclusion: If you eat a cow, pig, horse, dog, etc, using whatever excuse you do, you should have no problem eating humans, dolphins, etc. Because in the end, The cow will suffer, as will the dog, the human, just like anything with a Functioning Brain, no two humans suffer the same, so the excuse of it being different is worthless. This is Scientific FACT. People's Personal opinion or cultural preference can go eat shit and die. Such people reek of self preserving hypocrisy and double standards.
This is also scientific fact.
Therefore, Not necessarily go vegan, but just Stop being a disease upon the system of life which all are just a part of. Milk can be retrieved without making the cow suffer, or wool, from a goat for example.
1
-
atreyu119 Lol, I don't think we can have this argument over the internet, you can just get away with statements like "incorrect premise- a lot of animals have only a simple CNS which basically act like wires that send signals)" TOO OFTEN. - this is your assumption. You are also just 'sending signals' around your body, lol. That equates you as worthy of being eaten, as well.
You use simple organisms, and name NOT A SINGLE ONE, And still make a blatant claim on your favor, sheeshhhh.
Even cockroaches show observable efforts to avoid harm and negative environments in general. You fail to realise that SENTIENCE began with the primitive brain, and NOT with your ape brain. K. Digest that. Go fact check yourself once in a while.
Childish thoughts can do harm to adults, you know.
---------------------------
"and since plants are not sentient (premise)"--- Wrong. This is not a premise. It is scientific fact. Not a single plant possesses sentience, as the primordial brain originated AFTER SPLITTING OFF WITH THE PLANTS.
Also, don't use my caps or insulting terms towards you as excuses to overlook facts. It does you harm, and not me. You are the one who risks continuing a stupider way of thinking and behaving and the future will laugh at you for that. The future is gonna be a longgggg time, too.
I'll continue your final paragraph in the next one.
1
-
atreyu119 "Why are you making an argument for not eating meat altogether when it's the industry that's the problem? Like I said before, what do you think about hunting? It not only provides a good source of protein, but it is also heavily regulated and actually helps to maintain the population of certain species. It's a win/win situation.
Also, feel free to critique my argument, as I'm sure it's not perfect."
_ The argument isn't perfect, not just that, it is flawed entirely, and is full of double standards. Beans, tofu, soy, almonds, etc, provide more protein than 'hunting for protein'.
They are also void of murder. Here's a question for you. If I go into New York Times Square, and 'Hunted' some humans with my humane bow for my winter meat, because they are most like me and will have the MOST NUTRIENTS THAT I NEED, literally, it is ANY DIFFERENT than hunting a rabbit or Moose? If so, Why? There's one for you.
Next- You reduce other animals to protein and whatnot. You fail to realise that there are certain humans who are born LESS SENTIENT THAN the Animals YOU EAT. Would you be more comfortable with slaughtering and eating them? You'd actually be saving them from their miserable lives by proxy as well. :D
You need to try and refute this statement - There is no difference between killing a pig for meat, or killing a human. - Once you go through all the factual potentials of a good reason to continue, then please, do as you please. You live in a world where your behavior will be overlooked and nobody will bother changing it for you, so be wary, lel.
1
-
1
-
atreyu119 "Do you feel empathy when you step on a cockroach? I'm sorry if it seems cold hearted to you but I don't. (That doesn't mean I go around stepping on cockroaches for fun, let's get that clear)." -- Few things here-
1- You are Using extreme and absurd examples, such as trampling a cockroach out of no conscious choice of my own while I walk through somewhere. Using THIS to equate it with YOU knowingly paying for the rape, torture, slaughter, life enslavement of Thousands of sentient beings over your sad life, all for PERSONAL FULFILLMENT. You don't do it to survive, you do it because you enjoy it and because your herd enjoys it. It makes you feel whatever you are so desperate for. Simple. I don't trample cockroaches to eat them for personal enjoyment. It gets trampled by MISTAKE. YOU GET IT, IT'S A FUCKING ACCIDENT LOL, Unlike your ACTIVE CHOICE TO PARTICIPATE IN RAPE, MURDER, SLAVERY, etc LOLOLO. (Also, don't be a bigger idiot by using my CAPS LOCK as a strawman excuse to overlook all the intellectual smashing you're receiving. It's good for you if you improve your mentality.)
2- "My empathy for an animal is directly related to it's level of intelligence." - Really full of yourself, yes.
"I will determine that the main trait of my specie is the trait for considering the life of ALL sentient species, out of no scientific basis or moral argument. I will just assume it because it helps me overlook all the murder and rape that I am a part of, so it's better I continue like this avoiding shame and die pretending."
3- You're another fucking idiot, like most of your herd, and here's why- You don't realise that machines are also intelligent. Even more intelligent than YOU, in thousands of ways. Even more than a child in your family(or a really senile person), who isn't even smarter than an average pig, LOL. YOU EAT PIGS, who are Smarter than INFANT HUMAN BEINGS. Therefore, by your own twisted logic, YOU EAT SOMETHING SMARTER THAN A YOUNG HUMAN, and something that tastes eerily similar.
Go and contemplate your shit ridden life, you might have some time to make reparations and change your pitiful stone age mentality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I understand the appeal to money, but I also must acknowledge that the
majority of people, or let's say money itself, will never make up for
the inherent characteristics, lack of knowledge, unresolved issues.
Sometimes, to me money, and the pursuit of it in the highest manner,
seems like the ultimate escape from the other less obvious problems, no?
It's like a grander form of all the other small antics we take on to
often confront the important things or actions in life; by building side
quests to avoid the main quest, in a way.
Money solves problems, but only the problems the system of money itself planted into human existence, but being able to buy better pot or food for animals or a better computer is also tempting, but the "Far" reaching consequences of participation are what work as deterrents, too. Seeing too far into my actions makes me almost do nothing but hoard knowledge lol, because the world outside is relatively more ignorant and very often works against the well-being of the organism. I could literally live on nothing but decent temperature, balanced food, cats, pot, a source of information (my pc in this case), some external sources of perspective (friends, random run-ins when i go out, other animals), and that's all I need to solve my own problems, and find comfort in the future, and the infinity of life lol (since it can re-emerge anytime the conditions are right, even after total extinction).
A little long but that's how the feels are rolling right now.
1
-
I can't exactly say I'm enjoying it, but where I have reached in my understanding of the universe and the life within it, in contrast to all the humans before us, gives me a vague guarantee that it will all be ok, as an organism bound to evolution, and the need to move away from our violent/negative instincts(which inevitably deteriorates standards of living) which had a purpose when civilization did not exist, and now we're just in the phase where those behaviors and beliefs slowly get rooted out by something like an "anthropomorphized natural selection". With the development in AI and our ability to intervene into the genetics of an organism, there'll come a time when we can just identify and weed out all the pedophile, religious fanaticism, greed, jealousy, etc sustaining gene/traits, before the human is even born lol; You could say that is a place where I find solace.
I also have some understanding of hormones and diet, where I smoke a lot of pot, fap, as well at eat decent amounts of sugars, and some minor exercise to keep my body from losing form to our, present, unnatural environment; this makes it almost impossible for me to feel too down, I should get some more vitamin B12 tho.
Most people's existential suffering stems from things they don't know, rather than the things they don't have. I haven't quite understood it yet, but homo sapiens seem to have, through evolution, "had their reins of a pre-directed life loosened", where most humans suffer identity crises, go through neurosis, misconceptions about the world, etc. It's like this specie is almost free to roam and be what it can or wants to be, be it a furry other-kin asexual hipster, or a badass leather wearing chopper riding bike ganging man, to a gimp, or a rogue samurai bandit. It's easier to be a guy who just sits in his room going through the world thanks to the invention of the apes before him, i really need to find a job tho, so that's something I'll have to sort out unfortunately (or it could be good, the problem is the people, more than the task/job tbh, and it feels like people want to be that way, because it's so fucking easy to not be, or it seems, I don't think I can ever really see like the mind of another person or animal, but I can get close, maybe real close).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Smith, that is not fact, that is your assumption. "laughing makes my guard go down" what the fuck, you know this is a subjective opinion and not fact, right? It's also no alternative fact, so don't, just don't. I know creating space to put in words like 'hooked line and sinker' seem cool, but really, this whole crap about 'if you make a joke, you're open to suggestive manipulation' is something you pulled out your backside. Like people who voted trump, didn't get told funny jokes that brought their guards down -*They simply wanted all the racist, self-absorbed, american-pride garbage that he promised without cracking jokes, and the people gobbled it up like they've been gobbling McDiabetes and KilledFuckingChikens all these years and dying of cancer and heart disease lol. I'm sure "I am the one who's been brainwashed".
You also assumed I am liberal, I'll take a 'wild' guess that your 'enemies' are liberals. And not because of good reasons, but because you're the one who actually fell for tribal behavior and bait, because it feels so true to you. You don't realise that liberals, right, left, Democrat, Republican, alt-right, they're ALL TOOLS made by the people who want to keep you busy feeling like you're doing something important, while they slowly, but literally, come to own entire countries, the land, and the people in it. Because people like you are busy squirming over pathetic fucking ideologies, that count to nothing more than random club memberships, and that wafer thin fantasy is what your identity hinges on.
I'll take another guess -You actually just got triggered by what I said about Trump. Would not respond the same way if I said EXACTLY THE SAME THING to Hillary, Obama, or Berine lol. But you fooled yourself into creating this stack of text to attack, while hiding the original intent, even from yourself perhaps. It is a guess, so I don't have to be on mark with everything yo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
democratic election, correction-> ELECTORAL COLLEGE, filled with 1%'s selected pawns who can NEGATE DEMOCRATIC VOTE OF THE PEOPLE LIKE IT WAS NOTHING, ANY MOMENT, and CHOOSE THE PERSON THEY WANT. SO BASICALLY, YOUR VOTE, OR ANYONE'S FOR THAT MATTER, IS AND WAS WORTH NOTHING, AND IT HAS BEEN WORTH NOTHING SINCE THE CONCEPTION OF USA LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. High levels of comedic idonry detected. Basically, your "democracy" is a fucking sham. A facade that you so proudly latch onto for your own validation. Irony rising, must evacuate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point isn't that there will be "evolutionary parallels", but that there will be Striking Similarities between Earth life and life on other planets (depending on how long it has existed there), simply because our universe is bound to the same laws, Everywhere.
Sure, the lifeforms will have different adaptations regarding temperature, gravity, day/night cycles, etc., but if a lifeform in another planet ends up reaching "human-level" intelligence or more, the "mental processes or logical conclusions" will be the same, again, depending on how much time it has had to evolve. Because "intelligence" is the trait by which the organism interacts with the universe and changes it. And since the universe is homogeneous, the "intelligent", alien organisms that evolve, will keep moving toward more and more similar forms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Life is OBJECTIVELY TOO SHORT. No matter how much we do in that short time, it's still objectively SHORT.
While we could make a cure for biological decay, and death RIGHT NOW, the resources and manpower of our specie is fucking SPLIT, to the point where most competent people are wasting their skill and lives coding stupid apps, tracking systems, advertising algorithms. Some wasting away making cosmetics, implants, hair color, fashion shows. Companies whose only aim is to sell as many carbonated sweet drinks to people.
We could do all that unimportant crap after we've solved death lmao!!!!! BUT NO, gotta make that money, buy that sweet material thing to feel better, and do better business to be validated by other apes!!!!!! Following primitive drives, leads to inevitably primitive lives. FUCK so much unnoticed misery!!!!!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mohal-sal3998 But of course there are differences across varying populations regarding "IQ", which in itself is a poorly formulated metric, with a very narrow ability to measure "intellectual capacities" as a whole.
Charles Murray already proved that there are differences in IQ of people living in different environments for sufficiently long times. And that's right, differences do not mean inferiority/superiority.
But then again it is also obvious that any IQ tests today, still fail to evaluate many aspects of the brain. I merely approached this thread from the angle of refuting what the Andy Capp guy said, so I didn't intend on going into detail, as it can get rather verbose, like this comment already. His claim was that 'Japan is ethnically pure, which is the reason they're world leaders in innovation, and therefore, ethnic purity is good'.
I am also not a student of evolutionary biology, but then again, the value of being a "student in an institute" is no longer the same as it was 200, or 20 years ago. The knowledge is vastly more accessible online, compared to what any attended institute can ever teach an individual. The only thing that needs sharpening, is one's ability to distinguish pseudoscience from reality.
So finally, to conclude it, yes, I totally agree that there are IQ differences among varying populations/races. No question about that.
But we also know that IQ is not synonymous with overall intellectual capacity, and it only accounts for a handful out of the total specializations that a brain can do. And the main issue with the IQ scale, is that it almost convinces some people to think that the smartest people cannot come from the lowest average IQ populations, and the Highest average IQ populations will never have the dumbest people, which is untrue.
Meaning that though it may succeed as a signifier of general herd IQ, it utterly fails at the individual level.
1
-
@mohal-sal3998 On the first paragraph, I mostly agree, though the nuance here, is the fact that despite it being a good predictor of "success at a national and individual level", it merely does that in a Narrow, Money Chasing/Capitalist System. It would get too complex writing down about the existential cost per person (and collective) giving a part of their single chance at living, to temporarily perpetuate this system of operating for our specie and getting validation in return.
Genetics are inevitably, very important in "how intelligent a person can become". For some cliche examples; Einstein, Newton, Bach, were all very gifted genetically in certain departments, and their contributions have been fantastic, we can all agree.
However, if they were born on a distant, tribal island far from civilization and a good education/specialization system, they would be NOTHING compared to what good education made them. No matter how fantastic their "intelligence based genes" were. They would be just another homo sapiens somewhere on a landmass, nothing more, nothing less.
That is what Im trying to explain. Genetics and education. Both fail without the other, no matter how good.
And within decades (or centuries if things go to shit) will come a point where every human will be given a level playing field. Genes will become irrelevant, and so will education systems. Every disease will be curable, every disadvantage, leveled. All the petty things humans bicker about now will become irrelevant. And finally, individuals will be able to live as themselves instead of being haunted by their genes, society, environment, etc.
1
-
Correction - We have innate sense of fairness >>> Most of us have an innate sense of fairness, others don't, due to genetic factors. Then later in life, many of us will diminish our sense of fairness to OTHERS (while Mostly retaining it in regards to ourselves, sometimes intensified), due to the evolutionary pressures humans feel within relatively more complex ecosystems, which we call "civilization", the irony of the word says a lot.
Side note -
Sure the humans who do become more "unfair", often CAN stop the transition, but don't. Either A- due to lack of moral/self-preserving motivation, or B- due to pure ignorance/unawareness of the change within their mind.
Basically, what I want to state, is:
1- A MAJORITY of humans do have an innate (nature) sense of fairness, Like most other Mammals do. But, certain events or pressures (nurture -> these are reductive terms but get the message through) in their lives can reduce the amount of fairness they show toward others, especially those distant from their immediate surroundings/social sphere.
2- Entities that make Large sums of "money", will often either have to UNDERPAY the people who produce/process the services they make money out of (usually called employees), or OVERCHARGE for the service/good/utility/etc. Basically, someone is going to inevitably get "fucked over" for a slightly higher profit margin.
This is all a fragment of the evolutionary process, but unfortunately, sentient individuals are the test subjects, and there is no opting out completely, one can only adapt so far as their genetic and environmental potential combined, allows. Along with the knowledge they end up bumping into.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JamesJoyce12 That's exactly what he said, in simpler terms. He's using word trickery to minimize and personalize phenomenological facts regarding matter that composes minds and their respective states, which all operate under the EXACT SAME universal principles as ALL OTHER, NON-EXPERIENCING matter in existence.
The questions of "whether one state of actions is superior morally, than another state of actions" has nothing to do with sentiment. Sure, humans may by default rely on imperfect, subjective internal frameworks for judgement making (which include sentiments), but that doesn't conveniently get stretched into claiming that there is no one answer to "whether an action is moral or not".
I can use sentiments to derive whether one hydro dam produces more electricity than another hydro dam, but that doesn't end up meaning that the output of either dam can be higher depending on my feelings, as if there is no hydro dam in existence and it's just all a fiction of my mind. And it also doesn't imply that beyond my feelings, there is no actual "knowable state of electricity generation".
Moral claims ARE NOT claims relating to IMAGINARY topics and concepts, it's a claim about a PHENOMENOLOGICAL FACT of interactions between minds and their actions, and how they impact each other. SURE, there is a subjective interpretation of those things, but that DOES NOT mean it isn't happening in objective reality.
"more suffering" and "less suffering" are not imaginary occurrences m8, no matter how much a fat rich racist "philosopher" wants you to believe lol. Whether slavery causes more suffering and existential degenerations of minds involved, than less, is not a fucking "oh we can't conclude it factually so we just have to depend on arbitrary line-drawing".
To keep it simple if you can't bear to read the full response - "human experiences happen in human brains, human brains are matter, humans didn't make humans - the universal principles did - just like with ALL OF EXISTENCE. Morality pertains to experiences of minds, since EVERYTHING IN THE EQUATION is an objectively real thing, and follows the same pervading laws, morality itself is a calculable fact, since nothing arbitrary falls into the equation (though imperfect brained humans will often engage in make believe bullshitery, out of no choice of their own, like in anything else).
1
-
@JamesJoyce12 Your apparently limited interpretation of what I said is hurting your own clarity on what I stated. I even wrote it in condensed, reductive form at the end to help understand.
On a universal scale you're asking me a dumb question, as dumb as asking "Where in the universe is planet Earth?" The question itself ignores relativity and expects a coherent response to an incoherent question.
Also, when it comes to moral equations, it requires at least TWO minds in the RELATIVE space within which one acts upon the other. Moral equations are regarding mindstate changes within each mind,
if and when Perfect beings come into existence, who are 1:1 with objective reality, and much beyond our, limited, Earthly survival oriented minds, THEY will have a perfect answer to your and Hume's language games about morality lmao. Since the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is "one thing", as in the entire universe (AND the minds within it, since no exceptions in universal laws) has various possible configurations - and among those configurations, will be a configurations that will objectively be the perfect "universal state" of arranging matter for the least morally negative experiences.
Meanwhie, us imperfect, mentally fucked animals will just have to make to with "better moral claims" over "worse moral claims", it's already happening, too bad an 18th century Scott richboy couldn't know what we do today, yet you fell for his wordmancy.
1
-
@JamesJoyce12 Damn James, so hungry for a W that you'll self delude for "victory". You're *again*, restructuring what I said, then saying I said your warped version of the thing.
"MORAL SENTIMENTS" are Irrelevant in determining moral positives or negatives, even a MINDLESS (Fyi, that would mean also 'sentimentlessness') machine which is capable of computing all matter in existence (or a lot less even) can conclude what higher and lower moral systems (IE - ways of arranging mind-mind interactions) are. How much suffering a certain set of applications causes is not "up to animals' feelings", every brain in existence is
..
.. wait for it..
..
A PHYSICAL OBJECT, AND NEGATIVE STATES, SUFFERING, PLEASURE etc, are ALSO PHYSICAL PROCESSES. Subjective feelings don't come out of some magical ether.
Moral outcomes are not unclaimable lmao. Just because you can't comprehend that even SUBJECTIVE states have OBJECTIVE dependencies, all of which are calclable (just not by US, for now).
18th century fat racist richboy convinced a bunch of word-magic-vulnerable fools like it's some masterstroke haha, maybe these internalised, handy delusions of yours are also just subjective, they exist and don't, just depends on what you believe.
1
-
Solaveritas2, Yes, take life guidance from the man who thinks he has a spirit, and was made by god, who thinks nothing could be good without religion. While I'll die having understood where Life emerged from, and how we came to be, how our minds came to exist, the true suffering of humans and other lifeforms, and how chemical reactions created the foundation for what we see as "good and evil" today. Yes, please, go ahead, you'd just be another drop in the BILLIONS of people who will die surrounded in the delusion of religion, your whole lives will have rotted away, and every relation you had with another person, is stained by your self-serving delusions, that you'd latch on to yo dearly.
1
-
MATTHER VUJOVIC, His WHOLE VIEW is a DOWNGRADE from reality. IF YOU THINK USING MY CAPS AS AN EXCUSE TO REFUTE MY STATEMENT, THEN YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN.
"YOU IDOLIZE YOUR RATIONALITY AND IT ACTUALLY MAKES YOU COMPARATIVELY LESS RATIONAL." WHAT THE FUCK BRO LOL? DID you think that sounded smart when you wrote it down, or you didn't even second guess it?*
The way you're blindly jumping to his defense, SEEMS TO SHOW YOUR OWN EXCESSIVE IDOLIZATION OF JORDAN PETERSON AND HIS BASELESS RAMBLINGS. *I'VE ACTUALLY SPENT 15 years thinking about this shit, and I figured it out already, while this old fool is ZIPPING PAST HIS 50's and will ALMOST CERTAINLY DIE WHILE STILL DELUDED BY HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, and BELIEFS ABOUT MANHOOD. He is a SKINNY WEAK OLD MAN, AND Most Weak humans RELATE TO HIM, in order to avoid acknowledging THEIR OWN DELUSIONS, WEAKNESS, AND FAILURES.
The more people talk about my caps, the more caps-power I attain. I am almost a caps god. GIVE ME MORE POWER!!!!!!!!!!
1
-
eggo ... the very problem with Peterson, is that he uses "RELIGIOUS" to explain things that have NOTHING to do with religion. Anything called RELIGIOUS, even if not OVERTLY, it still hints towards a GOD-driven origin, and a herd mentality, because it is driven by BELIEF, not OBJECTIVE REALITY. Therefore there is NO WAY for individuals to come to their own conclusions, and must believe in his rhetoric, if they choose to follow him, because deviating outside what he says, invalidates his whole statement.
And another problem is the fact that JUST BECAUSE someone can derive/makeup Positive values from FICTION and Fairy Tales, does not Mean the origin of those stories is ALSO true. THis is the place that Jordan peterson is delusional about, He thinks 'Just because some good moral values can be learned from the Bible, there has to be a religious basis for that and god must be true.
And if you listen to his podcast with Sam Harris, you'll realize that this dude hasn't even figured out what is REAL yet, he keeps trying to dodge having to explain what he thinks of truth, he basically says 'what's useful is true', something along those lines. It becomes difficult to make sense of his drivel at times.
1
-
1
-
1
-
ExtantFrodo2, I don't think you got my angle; I am stating that you can not be a rapist who's also decent because he walks for women's rights marches lol. I simply gave two iterations, showing how two MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE moral states (moral and immoral) cannot exist within a single individual. Mental disorders are surely an exception, but that doesn't detract from the main point.
Also, Hitler's price was forfeiting his 1 chance at existing, at ever existing, by being a fucking self important nazi and living a childish, unrealistic fantasy, only to lose it all and be turned into a joke for the remainder of time lolo.
There is no hell, worse than existing in hell, is to not exist at all. Mmm tasty.
Also, Gandhi wasn't good because he did good things, he was immoral simply because he did certain critically immoral things, like play a role in separating India into 2 parts. Despite all the good he did.
Again, it's like how one might be a women's rights activist and pro life and all that, but also happens to be a rapist, it doesn't matter how much activism or any other moral thing that person does, they're still a fucking rapist if they don't stop that shit ayyyyy.
1
-
1
-
DarxPhil, I just have to tell you that you are mixing "subjective interpretations of morality" with "morality". The reason why nobody can say "Morals are individualistic" is because ANYTHING arising from this universe, like animals and their capacity to suffer, will all follow the universe's laws. And because they all follow the same rules, they all have an objective state, which can be interpreted Subjectively, but that doesn't change the objective truth of it. In a theoretical sense, there is ONE certain state of arranging every sentient organism's lives as to remove all suffering and maximize pleasure. And ONE certain state of arranging everything to cause the greatest amount of misery. These both potentials fall on the opposite ends of The "MORAL SPECTRUM". Every act done by sentient organisms toward other sentient organisms is a part of this spectrum, and either leans towards moral, or immoral behavior. You might, or your whole society, or even specie might subjectively create their own standards based on what suits them, but that does not change the REALITY of suffering and the existential states and potentials of other sentient organisms.
Everything that can suffer falls within the sphere of moral good or bad. Inanimate objects do not, unless they can indirectly be used to cause suffering to a sentient organism.
Basically morality applies to everything that can suffer, and you can look at it in any way you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Just how a rapist is always a rapist no matter how many people say otherwise, even if the whole human population says otherwise, the facts do not change. In the same way, the murder of another sentient organism is still murder, no matter how many societies enjoy committing it on a daily basis and pat each other on the back for it.
1
-
1