-->
@secularmerlin
I know i'm being a grammar nazi in a way... but psychopaths fit into this more. Sociopaths do care about some people.sociopaths
Tell me what you believe.
Posts
Total:
353
-->
@Outplayz
I know i'm being a grammar nazi in a way... but psychopaths fit into this more. Sociopaths do care about some people.
Ok
-->
@secularmerlin
I have an interest in watching police interrogators interrogate criminals. There is a cool channel on Youtube called "Jim Can't Swim" i'd recommend checking out if you are interested in such things. He's really good at teachings techniques of deception and the like. He had more videos, but Youtube keeps pulling them down for some reason. It's the best interrogation analysis channel i've seen. Apart from that i've always been interested in criminal minds.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
How does that correlate to one changing their mind concerning what is moral and what is not? Morality is after all just an opinion.
-->
@secularmerlin
Not everyone has the same cues.
Okay, do some people have the same cues and if so if that cue reacts the same every time is that not objective since their opinions of it don't change the cue? I feel like you're not arguing against objective morality, but rather universal morality which is not the same.
-->
@Outplayz
I actually hold a similar belief but I'm not agnostic about it (it's in my nature to want an answer, I'm not faulting you for healthy skepticism.)
I think the only difference between us, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you believe that "your" specific mind will survive in an afterlife and I believe that consciousness is a collective of certain particles that produce agency. so my mind is a clump of consciousness particles that gives me advanced perception when combined with my sensory organs. I believe that once I die, these particles will separate back in into their own individual primitive consciousness (think of this like your consciousness being like static) and that eventually some of all of these particles will reform to make a new consciousness. I also believe in a cyclic universe. Do you think your consciousness is ultimately physical or metaphysical?
-->
@disgusted
How does that correlate to one changing their mind concerning what is moral and what is not? Morality is after all just an opinion.
I don't know the specific comment you're rebutting, but I assume it's the one right before you. I don't think morality is an opinion. Even if I believed that murder was moral, when I see somebody get murdered, my evolutionary cue will send me a negative response (that sick feeling in your gut) My opinion has no control over that sick feeling so that feeling is objective automatically. That can't be denied. You can only deny the objectivity of our application of that feeling but society seems to follow it with near accuracy. Don't confuse objective with universal either. objective doesn't mean that everybody agrees on it. It means the source or the "moral" is objective. As for sociopaths. Random mutations explains this. Not everybody is going to get the "no murder cue" but 99% of us do because we've been favored by natural selection. that's not an opinion, that's objective.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
a species or society whose members murdered each other for little or no reason wouldn't be around very long. Therefore something that blocks the behaviour of murdering your neighoour at the drop of a hat will evolve.
In humans that block is implemented via a 'moral sense' - we instinctiely classify behaviours as moral (which are promoted)and immoral (which are supressed). of course we also have conscious thought, so we can see that casual murder would no be good in the long term but we don't need to think about it - we are wired up with an instinct that anti-social stuff like murder and stealing are 'bad'.
in my view, the words morality and immorality refers to an imaginary 'stuff' that suffuses things. When we judge something as moral or immoral we can think we are detecting the presence of morality-stuff or immorality-stuff within it.
-->
@keithprosser
in my view, the words morality and immorality refers to an imaginary 'stuff' that suffuses things. When we judge something as moral or immoral we can think we are detecting the presence of morality-stuff or immorality-stuff within it.
I don't count people's actual beliefs as being morals. To me, the moral is the feeling itself. I guess the honest way to put it is I believe we start off with an objective moral in our bodies and translate it based off our opinion. However, I believe that since their is an objective root to morality, that we as a society can use our intelligence to get an objective interpretation since we are able to scientifically see past the core reason for having the morals in the first place and we can properly interpret the objective cue.
I believe that subjective morals are not morals at all, but rather just opinions about morality. Once example would be "Biblical Morality" Looking at this as an atheist. It becomes clear to me that while Biblical morals might have initially been based in objective cues, that ultimately these morals were subjective and made for political reasons to control the people of the time.
So I consider it an equivocation fallacy when people refer to subjective assessments of morality as being morals. to me, those are just opinions about morality.
My quintessential example is a person who believes murder to be moral will still get a negative response if they witness a murder regardless about their opinion.
-->
@keithprosser
Also, I think evolution could also produce "immoral cues" as well. I kind of never got to that part, lol. Must have slipped my mind. Cause gene mutations don't care about good and evil.
I believe
THERE ARE NO RULES.
Plus
I am 38 years and 5 months old.
Thus My so called "morals" are a ( result* ) of ME living 38 years and 5 months with NO RULES.
* may not be the best word to use.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Thanks for commenting!
I believeTHERE ARE NO RULES.PlusI am 38 years and 5 months old.Thus My so called "morals" are a ( result* ) of ME living 38 years and 5 months with NO RULES.* may not be the best word to use.
Unique view. what do you mean by rules? Do you mean morals? I'm assuming your not talking about the rules of physics, lol.
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
So it seems you're saying that it's all subjective and you just make the best rules you can with your 38 years and 5 months of existence. I find this a good practical approach and assuming that you didn't accidentally pick up some horrible moral, I'm sure you've probably don alright for yourself.
I probably lives most of my life under a similar system until I got married and stopped going out to hang with people and stayed in watched philosophy videos all the time, lol.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Oh no. I have to answer now.( No not the laws of physics.)
No rules meaning, I can kill people. I can lie cheat and steal. I can abide by the law, I can break the law. . not saying that laws and morals are the same thing but ummmmmmm.
Dam it.
Hey Ralph you asked me what I meant by ( THERE are NO rules.) and I have not sufficiently answered your question yet.
So Ralph, I'm asking for a little time to get back to you on this. Can you give me one day to answer this please mate?
I owe you, WHAT AM I TRYING TO SAY WHEN I SAY, THERE ARE NO RULES.
Also your post #69 is nice man.
Good day.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
lol. so it was.
Sure, you take your time and get back to me. I'd be interested to see how it ends up. So far, it looks like the start to one hell of a conversation. lol
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Oh I misread what you said about the post, lol. Thanks!!
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
See LINK to several dictioanary definitions of synergy.So my only question at this point is "how do you define synergetic?"
I know you that;
1} despise dictionary definitions, and,
2} people who suggest that you place your ego to the side, in order to use a dictionary for starters, however,
3} this leaves you with a narrow viewpoint i.e less than a broad, wholstically comprehensive base of understanding of anything Ive attempted to communicate to you clearly and concisely.
Trust me, your not alone with these ego based mental blockages to truth and comprehension of relatively simple stuff.
-->
@mustardness
Can you drop the insults please. I know what synergy is. Please explain what you mean when YOU say it. I can't intuitively see how synergy applies to math so I need you to tell me your semantic methodology and put aside your EGO that keeps making you insult MY EGO
-->
@mustardness
explain the difference between adding two triangles and adding them in a synergetic way. I need to know what the specifics are of adding things by synergy. If you can't give me details about that, then it is impossible for me or anyone else to comprehend, correct?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I guess the honest way to put it is I believe we start off with an objective moral in our bodies and translate it based off our opinion.
My feelings when I see a chicken get its neck broken by whomever, so it can then have all of the feathers plucked out of its body so it can then be fried in grease may also be as disgusting as many things are , that may be part of normal life for those people.
However others may chose not to eat kill and eat chicken ---for whatever reasons-- and consider it immoral.
Objective experiences ---irrespective of feeling-- are mostly irrelevant to metaphyhsical-1, morals.
My quintessential example is a person who believes murder to be moral will still get a negative response if they witness a murder regardless about their opinion.
Ditto my above. Defecation of human waste is organic and necessary process, even most people find the act disgusting, we do not consider it immoral to do so.
Is it immoral to fart in public park within 10' ft of another person? So on and so on.
Is it immoral to fart in your own home if family is in the house?
I guess were getting into the fine line between polite etiquette rules and moral rules and they may or may not be directly related to disgusting objective experiences, of which can be catagorised by needs of the human{s}, or desires of humans.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I know what synergy is.
Obviously you do not or you would not have asked the question. Your ego is working overtime again.
Please explain what you mean when YOU say it.
I have and you ignore my comments specifically as stated. Evidence of you ego for this also is you have never or rarely reply with a specific comment by me that is in question. Ergo I have to keep responding to you repeated ego based replies of ignorance with the following;
Please share when you,
1} drop your ego,
2} consider using a dictionary for starters
3} offer rational, logical common sense the addresses my comments as stated.
I can't intuitively see how synergy applies to math
False otherwise you would not have asked my what "synergetic" means even after explanations and visuals to mathematics. More evidence of you ego working overtime to block truth pretend{?} ignorance.
so I need you to tell me your semantic methodology and put aside your EGO that keeps making you insult MY EGO
I will give you another example that Fuller uses irrespective of how your ego continues to block all truths via explanations Ive given you 2nd heand first hand from Synergetics and dictionaries. Three sources and your ego still blocks truth to enter your intellectual base of knowledge.
Here I paraphrase Fuller because I dont know the true values of the metals.
Iron as pounds per square inch { psi } of lets say 5, and nickel has a psi of lets say 10, ergo if combine those two metals ---smelt--- we might think their combined psi strength would be 15, when in actuallity their psi is greater than the sum of their individual psi strengths.
So,
1} read and reread my many lips/texts to you unti,
2} l you can address them as stated/presented to you, and,
3} please stop playing dumb with me, IF your an actual mature{?} adult{?}. I'm beginning to have my doubts{?}. Do you understand?
-->
@mustardness
Oh, I get it now. Your math is made up nonsense. Cool. That's all I needed to know. I was actually interested in what you had to say for a second there but all of your rudeness and ironic critiques of ego kind of turned me off of the whole thing. I will not make the mistake of actually trying to be civil with you again because I now know I was wrong to think you actually had a good thought to share with me. My mistake.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Ive given you the details via my 2nd hand intepretation --that includes more than Fullers-- and you have ignored them. Sad :--(explain the difference between adding two triangles and adding them in a synergetic way. I need to know what the specifics are of adding things by synergy. If you can't give me details about that, then it is impossible for me or anyone else to comprehend, correct?
Ive given you the link to those details via LINK to Synergetics ergo, first hand interpretation by Fuller with minus some of the info I gave.
Please stop playing dumb and begin to act like a mature adult even if you may not be one. Sad :--(
Read and reread my lips/text and address the specifics as stated and not your false repeated false accusations.
-->
@mustardness
What's really ironic was that after making a big deal out of dictionaries, I actually tire dot give you a chance to define a word for me so I could understand your argument and you condescend onto me with your stupid ego talk.
-->
@mustardness
I wasn't playing dumb. I was actually trying to understand your position because I thought it might have been cool. You're so fricken obtuse that you can't even see when someone is genuinely interested in something you have to say.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Oh, I get it now.
Sur you get it but your ego blocks you ability to acknowledge truth when it is presented to you in clearly and concisely. Sad :--(
Your math is made up nonsense. Cool.
No, your ego based mental blockages to truth is not cool. It is immoral.
That's all I needed to know. I was actually interested in what you had to say for a second there but all of your rudeness and ironic critiques of ego kind of turned me off of the whole thing.
If you cant handle the truth then you need to get out of the kitchen of truth.
I will not make the mistake of actually trying to be civil with you again because I now know I was wrong to think you actually had a good thought to share with me. My mistake.
More ego based false accusations by you is immoral chewing gum that you repeated regurgitate, to chew and repeat over and over. Sad :--(
Please share when you actually have any significantly rational, logical common sense that, addresses the specifics of my comments as stated. You ego does not allow you to to do this and that is further evidence the lack your being mature adult when engaging with me. Sad :--(
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I wasn't playing dumb.
False
I was actually trying to understand your position because I thought it might have been cool.
Believe that one and you will tell us another one just like it.
You're so fricken obtuse that you can't even see when someone is genuinely interested in something you have to say.
Ive presented clearly and concisely many pieces of information and you have not;
1} please share when you actually have any significantly rational, logical and common sense that addresses my comments as specifically stated/presented to you,
...ergo evidence of ego based mental blockages to truth...
2} the list Ive already present to you and you ego keeps placing immature, ego based mental blockages too. Sad :--(
-->
@mustardness
Sur you get it but your ego blocks you ability to acknowledge truth when it is presented to you in clearly and concisely. Sad :--(
Nice personal attack. You know what's really sad? when somebody who's interested in your ideas ask a question because they want to know more and you insult them. That's very logical of you.
No, your ego based mental blockages to truth is not cool. It is immoral.
You gave me no choice but to assume it's nonsense because when I asked you to explain how synergy applies to math, you shut me down. How am I suppose to understand a foreign concept that you bring to this forum when you won't even explain it to me. You keep telling me to sift through some link or something. Just explain it to me.
If you cant handle the truth then you need to get out of the kitchen of truth.
You mean the truth you refuse to share with me? That's rich.
More ego based false accusations by you is immoral chewing gum that you repeated regurgitate, to chew and repeat over and over. Sad :--(Please share when you actually have any significantly rational, logical common sense that, addresses the specifics of my comments as stated. You ego does not allow you to to do this and that is further evidence the lack your being mature adult when engaging with me. Sad :--(
How about this. When you're ready to stop tacitly insulting me and have an actual logical discussion, you can reply to me. I genuinely wanted to understand you ideas but you've made it clear that your only goal here is to insult me. So when that changes, you can explain mathematical synergy to me. Otherwise, you're just being rude and hateful for no reason. Have a good day jerk.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You gave me no choice but to assume it's nonsense because when I asked you to explain how synergy applies to math, you shut me down.
Ive given you many explanations and you ignored them and then falsely accuse me of not doing so. Take a hike dude until your ego based mental blockages to truth can be placed to the side and you can actually address my comments, as stated/presented to you, with any significant, rational, logical common sense.
You do not and that is evidence of your ego based mental blockages to truth. Sad :--(
How am I suppose to understand a foreign concept that you bring to this forum when you won't even explain it to me. You keep telling me to sift through some link or something. Just explain it to me.
1} placing your ego to the side--- and that appears to be your biggest issue---, so as,
2} you can stop dispising the idea of starting with allowing yourself to use a dictionary,
3} in order to broaden your wholistic comprehensive knowledge base.
You mean the truth you refuse to share with me? That's rich.
False as Ive repeatedly told you you need to go back and read and reread all of my truths clearly and consisely explained to you. This is more evidence of your ego based mental blockages to truth.
So when that changes, you can explain mathematical synergy to me.
Already explained it to you in 3 or more posts of which your ehave go based mental blockages to all three or more of them.
Maybe you just missed them. Maybe you just lack reading comprehension skills. Maybe combination of both of those plus ego based mental blockages to truth.
1} We can lead or horse to truth but we can not make them drink the truth, or.
2} we cannot make them swallow the truth, or,
3} we cannot make them keep puking the truth back out after tasting it and swallowing it, or,
4} processed truth and defecated it outward and then inferring truth stinks and is a toxic waste that is to be thrown back at the source { M-Tard } of truth.
Sad :--(
-->
@mustardness
You answered some of my questions. You still haven't explained mathematical synergy. So do that or don't but I'm ignoring your insults. Save your mind games for somebody else. Cause They're not for me.
-->
@mustardness
It's really not hard. IF someone asked me what a tautology was. My answer wouldn't be to insult them and tell them they don't have logic just because they asked a question.
I would explain it to them because that's how people work. usually