User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-21 at 4:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The very concept of moral good and evil is rooted in the framework, there is no morality in a vacuum. You either understand this and are ready to have a discussion or you don't, and you aren't.
The speed of the tortoise and the hare 8s objective. The speed of the intermediate object is objective. The quickness or fastness relative to either is objective. No part of this example remotely establishes subjectivity.
Whether or not it's relative is irrelevant to whether or not it is objective.
It doesn't need to change that, it relies on the relativity. The fact is that you can make a case they have certain moral obligations to each other regardless of whether or not they feel it… That's the point.
Your concept of good and your concept of bad have grown from all the experiences you have had in life up until now. What you find good or bad is relative and unique to your life. Another person with a different life experience will have different concepts of good and bad. Of course the experiences that led to your concepts objectively happened. In a fantastic world we could probably objectively measure and map exactly what experiences led to your different perspectives. None of that changes that what is good or bad for you is not necessarily good or bad for the other person.
Of course the speed of the tortoise and the speed of the hare is objective. That doesn't change that the quickness or slowness of the hare or the tortoise is relative to their own experience. What is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
Relativity is not irrelevant. Relativity is the whole point.
The fact that you can make a case that they "should" feel something they do not actually feel doesn't change the way they do feel. 0.63 miles per hour might feel extremely quick to the tortoise. Sure, you can make the case that he is actually very slow relative to the hare. You might try to convince him that he should feel slow traveling at that rate. Your case doesn't change the fact that the tortoise experiences his speed as extremely quick. -
2019-04-21 at 4:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Morality is ontologically subjective but epistemically objective. This isn't difficult you retard.
no. this is morality ;
IN THE BEGINNING
Long before history, long before homosapiens and even longer before homosapiens discover homosexuality, at the beginning of time when disorganized organism began to organize themselves into a something with a semblance of social order, there began a something which had hitherto until then had yet have a name.
A thing with which we now have a name for and it's what we called Álpha-bet. A thing of Álphas, and betas.
Now as most of you who are well versed in Álpha-bet, that is to say the dynamics between Álphas and betas may have already known, betaness and betadoom aren't a something that is perpetual, that they wax and they wane according to the surge of time and the ebb of age, like your presidents and elected representives, they came, they stayed, and they went.
Ditto is then with Álphas and betas, a beta will in due time grow up and rise to the occasion to challenge and then depose the current Álpha in place, but will then after a certain period of time grow old and weak and sink back to the lower, beta plane from whence it came from when it was juvenile, to be replace by another beta that had risen up into the rank of Álphahood.
But what does all these have anything to do with morality, or Mike Pence for that matter you might ask ... to this my answer is
clench your teeth and grab your ankles hard for the answer will come to you in another few inches.
As you all may have already known, elections are good and democracy is great, but as good as ellections are and great as democracy is .... we can't have elections all day and evry day as that will not only be counter productive and costly, it is also dangerous in such a way that it will render democracy into something much, much worse than africcans' perpetual cycle of 'revolutions', a never ending cycle of replacing old dictators with a new one.
Now, the same thing it is with Álpha-bets, the Álpha-beta dynamics. Just as we can't have ellections evry day or every week as that will grind the government to a screeching halt, socialized animals too can't have Álpha-beta competitions all day evry day as that will also screech their food procurement to a grinding halt.
So in the mean time, in the time between Álpha-beta competitions, the betas of that society will have to find a way to co-exist along side the Álpha in a conflict-free and productive way for the greater good of that specific society and long term survival of that particular species as a whole.
And it was in this void that it came to being :
THE HERD MENTALITY.
Now obviously in order to be able to co-exist peacefully along side the Álpha of the pack and to avoid potential conflicts, the herd of betas would need to have a very different set of mentality from the Álpha,
the beta herd as a collective would have to be very subserving, docile, pacifist, and effeminated. Pussies according to contemporary, physiologically accurate nomenclature. And over time, over the course of generations and after tedious processes of natural selection, this set of beta sub-behavior eventually became permanently encoded into the DNA, and thus became ingrained into our psyche and our sub-consciousness.
And eversince humanity became civilized and literated, this herd mentality began to beget many a names.
Of one, they call it Morallity.
THE ORIGIN OF MORALITY
With the advent of writtings humanity, the beta herd, like their Álpha lords, began to record and store all the knowledges they've acquired over their life time into a retrieveable format, knowledges that the beta herd thought to be useful, important, or paramount to their collective wellbeing, security or even as far as their very existence are concerned.
In the begining, these were nothing more than personal notes, ramblings and musings, advisories, reminders, and simple warnings to other fellow betas on how not to behave, but over time, and over the generations these simple writtings eventually morph into more sophisticated fables and allegories, before finally metamorphosising into compendiums of biblical length and scope of what is and is not virtue.
But these great volumes of beta herd's literary works were not of the same as those produced by the Álphas that dealt mainly with manly wars and grotesque conquests and the glorification of rapes and pillages. Far from it, as had been pointed out earlier, the beta herd, due to the codes in their DNA, were inherently predisposed towards pussyficism. They instinctively revel in the partaking of beta-oriented herd activities just as birds instinctively make nests from weeds and spiders weave nets with their asses;
Thus the entire collection of literary works of these betamenschen contained nothing but the glorification of pussificism, the preaching and the propagation of beta traits like cowardism-for-the-greater-good, unrestrained tollerance, surrenderism, over empathy with and for the victims, strong aversion towards pain and suffering of other humans and animals alike, the unquenchable desire for compliance and conformity, but above all, the desire to be a proud member of a collective body, The Herd. To belong.
As the beta herd were living in a society which the Álphas have built, it's only natural for their vast compendiums of virtue to end up in the possession of Álphas. And due to the beta herd's inherent betaness in everything they do, literary endeavours included, it's only natural that these vast compendiums of virtues churned out by the beta herd had little impact upon the the society at large, even amongst their own in the beta herd, so in the end, these great collections of beta literatures remained inert, impotent, and forgoten; sitting there and gathering medieval dusts in obscure corners of the libraries with which the Álphas have built with the proceeds of wars and the slave labors of the conquered. And it was here that a strange twist of fate occured that will forever change the course of humanity.
BY THE ÁLPHAS, FOR THE bETAS.
Somehow and somewhere, as if per fate or per chance, the inert and ever impotent books of beta Virtue finally caught the attention of an Álpha. Fueled by raging curiosity, the Álpha studied these vast literature of betadoom intensely and in great detail; and what he read shook him to the very core of his foundational beliefs. How could a significant portion of the populace, people around him that he meets and interacts everyday, live by such pussified worldview ? He investigated further.
The Álphas needless to say, have a mentality that is fully the opposite, completely different and entirely foreign to these beta menschen. The Values and Virtues preached by these beta menschen thru their beta literatures went against everything that the Álpha stood for and held true. All these nonsences enraged him verily.
But instead of opposing these abominable beta ideologies, after long and careful deliberation with himself, the Álpha, realizing the potential power of these beta herds' sentiments and the usefulness of this beta herd mentality in the service of protecting and maintaining the current Álpha-beta status quo, did not only decided to tollerate these beta-worldviews, but had taken a step further by becoming himself the champion and high priest of the betamenschen's beta creed.
In prehistoria, the Álphas of a society would have to constantly flash their teeth, wave their fists and brandish their clubs as means to keep the beta herds in line, and to remind them of where everybody was in the pecking order. The betas of course, upon receiving the stimuli of violence and potential conflict, cowed with fear and instinctively became docile and subserving, and ever tollerant.
But thanks to the advent of literacy and written language, the Álphas of the modern day are having it much more easier. They needed only to simply retreat to their study room, or bedroom, or the patio, wherever they feel comfortable, and by means of an i-nkhorn or a quill or an i-mac, weave and forge all the beta sentiments which they have harvested from the field of beta literature and out comes the magical codes of conducts that will keep the beta herds perpetually in line and perpetually subservient.
The Álphas, bestowed with their natural ability to lead and endowed with great literary prowess, achieved this task with relative ease and just like that, millions of betas were swayed.
After all, what the Álpha preached as virtues and moralities (appropriate herd behavior) were not a something that were entirely new or foreign to the beta herds, for these beta sentiments were already ever-present deep in the hearts and minds of the beta masses. And now that their inherent, hitherto supressed betaness had not only been validated by the Álphas, but vindicated even, the repressed betas stormed out of their closet they've been hiding in all these while by the millions !
And just like that, an entirely new genre of mob appeared out of thin air, coalesced, condensed and crystalized before our very eyes and replaced the mob that came before it;
The Beta Bolshevik is now here.
And without any ado, the beta bolshevik as the new mob in town began to take hold and shape the society that they have just taken over. But unlike the previous mob that was a mob of betas ruled directly by a few Álphas at the top, the new beta bolshevick is made up entirely and exclusively of beta menchens that self-police and self-regulate according to all the principles, criterias and advisories that the Álpha menshevicks had laid out for them.
The beta bolshevicks did these not because they have an or any affinity for the Álpha menshevick, for they aren't even aware that the Álpha menshevick exists, but rather out of their own propensity for peace and stability as a collective entity, the herd, and to the best of their beta knowledges, the only way to achieve that is by adhering to every and all the teachings and principals laid out for them by the Álphas and the literatutes they have created.
And these sets of rigid doctorines and values with which the beta bolshevicks regulate and police themselves with,
Morality is what it is known.
The approved behavior of the herd is what it is. -
2019-04-21 at 4:44 PM UTCTime is relative
-
2019-04-21 at 5:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Your concept of good and your concept of bad have grown from all the experiences you have had in life up until now. What you find good or bad is relative and unique to your life. Another person with a different life experience will have different concepts of good and bad. Of course the experiences that led to your concepts objectively happened. In a fantastic world we could probably objectively measure and map exactly what experiences led to your different perspectives.
Who gives a fuck about a fantastic world? Whether or not we know about it, you've simply conceded that there is a moral fact of the matter.None of that changes that what is good or bad for you is not necessarily good or bad for the other person.
What is good or bad for you or for the other person is not necessarily what is morally good. What is morally good can be (and is) ascertained by whatever faculties you and the other person use to determine what is morally good.Of course the speed of the tortoise and the speed of the hare is objective. That doesn't change that the quickness or slowness of the hare or the tortoise is relative to their own experience.
Either of their experiences is determined by their speed, which are objective facts.Relativity is not irrelevant. Relativity is the whole point.
Yeah no shit.The fact that you can make a case that they "should" feel something they do not actually feel doesn't change the way they do feel.
Whether or not they actually actually do feel it is irrelevant, which is the point: there is a moral fact of the matter regardless.0.63 miles per hour might feel extremely quick to the tortoise. Sure, you can make the case that he is actually very slow relative to the hare. You might try to convince him that he should feel slow traveling at that rate. Your case doesn't change the fact that the tortoise experiences his speed as extremely quick.
Nowhere in the discussion is "how the tortoise should feel" relevant. Exactly how slow he is is a perfectly universally translatable concept regardless of how it feels. That's the point. Importantly, it can be communicated with no loss of information to the hare that something else moving at X miles per hour would be the same experience of slowness for him as something going at Y is for the tortoisem. -
2019-04-21 at 5:46 PM UTC
-
2019-04-21 at 5:58 PM UTC
Nowhere in the discussion is "how the tortoise should feel" relevant. Exactly how slow he is is a perfectly universally translatable concept regardless of how it feels.
It is relevant to the question is the tortoise quick or slow. Yes, his exact speed is universally translatable. But whether that speed is quick or slow is relative. The tortoise might answer that he is quick at that speed. The hare might answer that he is slow at that speed. Quick and slow are relative, like good and bad. -
2019-04-21 at 8:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe It is relevant to the question is the tortoise quick or slow.
The question is simply a single application a generalized solution. This is no different to taking an equation like y=2x+3 and solving for when X=3.Yes, his exact speed is universally translatable. But whether that speed is quick or slow is relative.
The tortoise might answer that he is quick at that speed. The hare might answer that he is slow at that speed. Quick and slow are relative, like good and bad.
You are retarded dude. I have already addressed this.
I'm not going to repeat this again just because your entire plan is to continue to babbling on repeat while ignoring whatever arguments anybody else gives. -
2019-04-21 at 9:30 PM UTCDo you think that what is quick for the tortoise cannot be slow for the hare? Because I'm pretty sure you do agree what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
-
2019-04-21 at 9:38 PM UTC
-
2019-04-21 at 9:46 PM UTCTIME IS RELATIVE
DUHHHHHHUHH -
2019-04-21 at 9:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The moral fact of the matter is analogous to what speed it is going at, period.
No, the goodness or badness of something is analogous to the quickness or slowness of something, which as I've explained is a relative thing.
We can objectively measure speed, but the objective measurement of speed doesn't change that what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
Similarly, the objective measurement of <something?> doesn't change that what is good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle. -
2019-04-21 at 9:59 PM UTCyeah, and time is relative.
-
2019-04-21 at 11:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe No, the goodness or badness of something is analogous to the quickness or slowness of something, which as I've explained is a relative thing.
We can objectively measure speed, but the objective measurement of speed doesn't change that what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
Similarly, the objective measurement of <something?> doesn't change that what is good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle.
No, what is morally good or bad is analogous to the speed, and whether something is fast or quick is simply irrelevant to the fact of the matter, as it is a special case for the general rule.
To bring it back to morals, murder is wrong because there is normally no justification for taking someone else's life that you can hold while not wanting to give up your own. Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. -
2019-04-22 at 1:55 AM UTC
-
2019-04-22 at 2:25 AM UTC
-
2019-04-22 at 3:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator To bring it back to morals, murder is wrong because there is normally no justification for taking someone else's life that you can hold while not wanting to give up your own. Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
to kill an infidel is not murder,
its path to heaven. -
2019-04-22 at 3:23 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-04-22 at 7:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator No, what is morally good or bad is analogous to the speed, and whether something is fast or quick is simply irrelevant to the fact of the matter, as it is a special case for the general rule.
To bring it back to morals, murder is wrong because there is normally no justification for taking someone else's life that you can hold while not wanting to give up your own. Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
No, the goodness or badness of something is analogous to the quickness or slowness of something, which is not irrelevant, it's what we're talking about.
You can measure a cock. Maybe a cock is 8". Is that good or bad? Well everyone will have a different answer, and their answer will depend on a variety of things. For example, is the cock hanging between their legs or is it shoved up their ass? I know faggots like you might think that's a great thing, but not everyone would agree. This is why the goodness or badness of things are relative. -
2019-04-22 at 9:06 PM UTC
-
2019-04-22 at 10:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Why?
Pay attention. The reason why is that 0.63 miles per hour could be quick or slow depending on if you ask the tortoise or the hare. It is the same reason a 6 " cock could be long or short depending on who you ask. Same reason gazelle murder could be good for the lion but bad for the gazelle. I think you already know why - the reason is that all these things are relative.
0.63 miles per hour is objectively 0.63 miles per hour. This speed is not considered quick nor slow unless we are comparing it to something else.
Similarly, <some objective measurement> is objectively <some objective measurement>. That measurement is not considered good nor bad unless we are comparing it to something else.
Goodness and badness are analogous to quickness and slowness. Goodness and badness are relative.
