User Controls
is everyone evil
-
2015-08-10 at 10:55 PM UTC
Seeking a qualified opinion, or even hiring an expert, is a far cry from subservience.
Nail, hit it on the head. There's a massive difference. -
2015-08-12 at 3:46 AM UTC
Seeking a qualified opinion, or even hiring an expert, is a far cry from subservience.
How exactly? Either you take expert advice (indistinguishable from subservience based on merit) or you don't (and would be a retard for it most likely). The idea of consultation as making yourself some kind of central executive who weighs expert advice is misguided. You are not qualified to weigh evidence in complex fields you're not an expert in. The vast majority of us just don't have the ability to separate correct elaborate mathematical proofs from wrong ones, and thus the best we can do is defer to consensus among mathematicians. Either we do this or we don't, but there's no way to separate the "consulted experts, took their advice" scenario from the "took expert advice merely because experts gave it" because they're functionally the same thing.Which is what defines good and evil.
The problem here is most relativistic moral "theories" are internally inconsistent. There doesn't seem to be a coherent way to decide the jurisdiction of any given moral rule-set in such models. -
2015-08-12 at 3:52 AM UTCSubservience requires domination.
You are hopelessly leftist, lanny, I give up trying to convince you otherwise.. -
2015-08-12 at 4:09 AM UTC
Subservience requires domination.
You are hopelessly leftist, lanny, I give up trying to convince you otherwise..
I was about to say, subservience implies coercion but yeah lan lan is a lost cause as far as his political views are concerned, lulz. -
2015-08-12 at 4:47 AM UTC
Subservience requires domination.
Do you see the regress that's happening here? "why is <DOING X> bad?", "because it implies subservience", "but why is subservience bad", "because it implies domination", "so why is domination bad?". Let's stick to the point. You originally called me out saying "stop being a subservient weenie" implying subservience is bad. You seem to owe us an account of why subservience is bad and why advocating control by the competent (what I was doing in the post you quoted) is subservient, -
2015-08-12 at 4:52 AM UTCLeaning 'left' or 'right' doesn't inherently make someone lost or delusional or anything of the sort. Implied beliefs within those leanings can appear to demonstrate certain lacks of perception, but not by default. I have always just sort of thought, in the most general sense, that being LEFTISH means you care about humanity, and being RIGHTISH means you care about taking care of 'your own.' Obviously that's a very simplistic look at it but it's where I start. I have yet to have demonstrated to me why caring about humanity is a bad idea and makes a person foolish. Is it because we're only here for such a short amount of time and the world is presumed ultimately fucked, that it's laughable to look at those who think a difference can be made? Is it the right thing to do to simply protect what's yours and offer no help to others since of our short time here on the earth? If enough people, perhaps, thought differently, perhaps a difference could be made... that shouldn't be weird to believe. When masses believe in something, that something generally takes place. When the masses are purposefully ignorant or turn a blind eye to atrocities, it's easy to assume those atrocities aren't taking place and it's sure nice to be on the side that isn't experiencing them. I guess empathy and sympathy have a lot to do with it, of which many willfully choose not demonstrate or experience.
-
2015-08-12 at 5:05 AM UTC
Leaning 'left' or 'right' doesn't inherently make someone lost or delusional or anything of the sort. Implied beliefs within those leanings can appear to demonstrate certain lacks of perception, but not by default. I have always just sort of thought, in the most general sense, that being LEFTISH means you care about humanity, and being RIGHTISH means you care about taking care of 'your own.' Obviously that's a very simplistic look at it but it's where I start. I have yet to have demonstrated to me why caring about humanity is a bad idea and makes a person foolish. Is it because we're only here for such a short amount of time and the world is presumed ultimately fucked, that it's laughable to look at those who think a difference can be made? Is it the right thing to do to simply protect what's yours and offer no help to others since of our short time here on the earth? If enough people, perhaps, thought differently, perhaps a difference could be made… that shouldn't be weird to believe. When masses believe in something, that something generally takes place. When the masses are purposefully ignorant or turn a blind eye to atrocities, it's easy to assume those atrocities aren't taking place and it's sure nice to be on the side that isn't experiencing them. I guess empathy and sympathy have a lot to do with it, of which many willfully choose not demonstrate or experience.
The right not caring about humanity is a myth. The right cares just as much for humanity however the right's ideas of how to make everything fair for everyone among other things are simply fundamentally different than the left's. -
2015-08-12 at 6:56 AM UTC
The right not caring about humanity is a myth. The right cares just as much for humanity however the right's ideas of how to make everything fair for everyone among other things are simply fundamentally different than the left's.
It's true, Jonathan Haidt has done good work in this, and also demonstrated that leftists generally don't understand rightists worldview, the farther to the left you go the worst the effect becomes, on average, and attribute differences due to evil, which Lanny has consistently shown.
Leftists universalist humanitarian values also tend to be wildly inconsistent and incoherent: www.slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
They've inadvertently dine enormous harm. Housing (I highly recommend reading "The Gated City") and agricultural and trade policies have done enormous harm to the poor, by far the most. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/10/housing_and_pov.html
And their fiscal state and sustainability is largely illusory: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/06/californias_pho.html
Their stances and activism on nuclear power have also by far done the most environmental damage, the arguments against it don't stand up to scrutiny: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2rc9oc/nuclear_power_is_the_greenest_option_say_top/
Of course people like Lanny will refuse to take responsibility for it and claim they aren't inherently leftist stances, which is true, but won't answer as to why they come from the left and have been adhered to so consistently and widespread for decades with no sign of changing, all the while having no problem blaming rightists for their perceived outcomes of their policies. -
2015-08-12 at 4:25 PM UTC
Of course people like Lanny will refuse to take responsibility for it and claim they aren't inherently leftist stances, which is true, but won't answer as to why they come from the left and have been adhered to so consistently and widespread for decades with no sign of changing, all the while having no problem blaming rightists for their perceived outcomes of their policies.
That's the thing right? According to the left nothing is anyone's fault, that is, if you're poor or a minority. The left seems to have this idea that wads of cash simply fall out of the sky, and it so happens the biggest wads fall into the hands of wealthy businessmen and the small wads fall in the projects. It's not like people who are rich actually worked hard to get rich and deffered gratification. No, no, they're just 'well connected' and 'work the system'.
Everything is always everyone else's fault, the system is rigged i tell you! It is designed to keep the little man little! It don't matter what you do, you will never ever get out of the projects! The only solution is state-sanctioned, violent redistribution of wealth. The rich won't give a shit about this though because they have the means and the know-how to survive extra taxes and whatnot, while the middle class gets destroyed in the process and at the end of the day the wealth disparity increases even more. What the left doesn't realize is that all their ideas and policies have the exact opposite effect of what their stated goal is. But of course, they'll never admit it, for it must be someone else's fault right? Because the leftist ideology is infallible... -
2015-08-12 at 4:41 PM UTC
Do you see the regress that's happening here? "why is <DOING X> bad?", "because it implies subservience", "but why is subservience bad", "because it implies domination", "so why is domination bad?". Let's stick to the point. You originally called me out saying "stop being a subservient weenie" implying subservience is bad. You seem to owe us an account of why subservience is bad and why advocating control by the competent (what I was doing in the post you quoted) is subservient,
I am not ok with 'control by the competent', and that is it. You advocate it, and that is it. There it is.
As I said, it is a waste of time to discuss this with you, as you will just say things like 'but science and math!'
These disciplines are ever-changing, and there are no absolutes, even in the ivory tower world. If I am going to be ruled by fallible humans, science or not, I would rather just trust my own judgement. I mean, our science and math overlord elites aren't going anywhere, and if I need their services, I can pay them to do so.
-
2015-08-12 at 4:43 PM UTC
Leaning 'left' or 'right' doesn't inherently make someone lost or delusional or anything of the sort. Implied beliefs within those leanings can appear to demonstrate certain lacks of perception, but not by default. I have always just sort of thought, in the most general sense, that being LEFTISH means you care about humanity, and being RIGHTISH means you care about taking care of 'your own.' Obviously that's a very simplistic look at it but it's where I start. I have yet to have demonstrated to me why caring about humanity is a bad idea and makes a person foolish. Is it because we're only here for such a short amount of time and the world is presumed ultimately fucked, that it's laughable to look at those who think a difference can be made? Is it the right thing to do to simply protect what's yours and offer no help to others since of our short time here on the earth? If enough people, perhaps, thought differently, perhaps a difference could be made… that shouldn't be weird to believe. When masses believe in something, that something generally takes place. When the masses are purposefully ignorant or turn a blind eye to atrocities, it's easy to assume those atrocities aren't taking place and it's sure nice to be on the side that isn't experiencing them. I guess empathy and sympathy have a lot to do with it, of which many willfully choose not demonstrate or experience.
You think this because you were told to think this, by TV and media. The things you say about 'the right' are what the left wants you to think about 'the right'.
Half of the population is brainwashed just like MMMQQ apparently is, and it is just sad. -
2015-08-12 at 4:55 PM UTCLibertarian master race.
-
2015-08-12 at 5:02 PM UTCLanny thinks that my ideas, the concept of people taking care of themselves, is ridiculous, and believes that humanity should be ruled by a class of intellectual elites, probably because he is highly intelligent and hopes to take his place among the overlords.....yet his ideas fail every time they are tried, and mine are the way humanity has lived for tens of thousands of years.
-
2015-08-12 at 7:32 PM UTC
It's true, Jonathan Haidt has done good work in this, and also demonstrated that leftists generally don't understand rightists worldview, the farther to the left you go the worst the effect becomes, on average, and attribute differences due to evil, which Lanny has consistently shown.
Leftists universalist humanitarian values also tend to be wildly inconsistent and incoherent: http://www.slatestarcodex.com/2014/0...-the-outgroup/
They've inadvertently dine enormous harm. Housing (I highly recommend reading "The Gated City") and agricultural and trade policies have done enormous harm to the poor, by far the most. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...g_and_pov.html
And their fiscal state and sustainability is largely illusory: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...rnias_pho.html
Their stances and activism on nuclear power have also by far done the most environmental damage, the arguments against it don't stand up to scrutiny: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/commen...ption_say_top/
Of course people like Lanny will refuse to take responsibility for it and claim they aren't inherently leftist stances, which is true, but won't answer as to why they come from the left and have been adhered to so consistently and widespread for decades with no sign of changing, all the while having no problem blaming rightists for their perceived outcomes of their policies.
By the way Mal Mal, that 'I can tolerate anything except the outgroup' article was brilliant. I didn't read it entirely but from what i read it was good. -
2015-08-12 at 8:15 PM UTC
Lanny thinks that my ideas, the concept of people taking care of themselves, is ridiculous, and believes that humanity should be ruled by a class of intellectual elites, probably because he is highly intelligent and hopes to take his place among the overlords…..yet his ideas fail every time they are tried, and mine are the way humanity has lived for tens of thousands of years.
I can actually see Lanny as an Overlord... or an Overlady (like that wicked Queen in Snow White with the tight-fitting headwear). -
2015-08-12 at 8:27 PM UTC
I can actually see Lanny as an Overlord… or an Overlady (like that wicked Queen in Snow White with the tight-fitting headwear).
All the science and math in the world isn't going to protect the elite geeks from some good old fashioned right-wing insurgent regime change. -
2015-08-12 at 8:30 PM UTCAlso, specifically for MQ, I want to address his belief that left wingers are all about sharing, and right wingers are all about greed: You are dead wrong.
No matter what they taught you in public school, or what you saw on MSNBC, the right/left paradigm ONLY deals with individualism versus collectivism. Anything else is just extraneous garbage designed to obscure the truth. -
2015-08-12 at 10:06 PM UTCI am sure that I will have to explain that 'individualism' has nothing to do with being selfish, it means that you are free. No one standing over your shoulder, telling you what to do all day. We are all adults here, and responsible for our own actions. I know I don't like being treated like a child by our' betters' who run our lives from washington. The thing about right wingers being greedy, is totally erroneous, you are confused. You are thinking of conservatism, which is a totally different ball game. It is sad that I have to explain this, but you leftists won't believe me anyway, because I am a right winger, which means I am mean spirited and greedy, and therefore evil.
You really think that I believe the way I do because I am selfish and hate the poor? -
2015-08-14 at 2:54 AM UTC
The right not caring about humanity is a myth. The right cares just as much for humanity however the right's ideas of how to make everything fair for everyone among other things are simply fundamentally different than the left's.
It's a nice story but I don't think it pans out for much, if not most, of the libertarian-esq right. Consider such dogma as non-aggression. It's considered a fundamental rule which it is never permissible to break. The christian right has much the same in the form or religious dogma. As soon as you have a deontological rule like that which isn't "maximize well being" then your primary concern is no longer the well being of humanity. I mean there are smart people who believe that and it's certainly not a position we can write off without strong arguments but it's simply a matter of fact that if you are willing to reduce net human well being in order to uphold a moral law then you care less about humans than someone who things human well being is the final good (most act utilitarians).
edit: now I should say I'm not sure this cuts along right/left lines, but it's hard to argue that deontological positions (or at least implicitly deontological positions) aren't more common on the right. -
2015-08-14 at 2:59 AM UTC
You think this because you were told to think this, by TV and media. The things you say about 'the right' are what the left wants you to think about 'the right'.
Half of the population is brainwashed just like MMMQQ apparently is, and it is just sad.
Fine, I'm brainwashed. Nothing that I do is politically based anyway, so who gives a shit?
