zedvictor4

Lucky you.

Useless waste of an S maybe, Doc.

Or were you doing a Kaa......Trust in me, as it were.

Killing is neither necessarily wrong nor necessarily evil.

Wrong and evil are just assumptive constructs, exactly the same as right and good.

Subjective immorality or morality, as it were.

Thank you.

I always try to note sensibly.

You obviously understood the metaphorical cynicism that I noted in my post.

True.

I think, that fundamental human nature as changed much since we came down from the trees.

OK. 

So hypothetically of course.....I would ask GOD....Are you as nonsensical as most theists make you out to be.

So, when did I say that?

People function independently, so therefore think for themselves....In so much as they process acquired and stored data (think) as an individual.

I was referring to the information that we store and how it is acquired and stored, and how typically we utilise our formative programming as the basis of how we conduct our future lives.

That is not to say that people are not able to formulate new ideas....We obviously make new decisions, and vary our behaviour, especially if we consider it beneficial to our well being.

I think therefore I am.....How many times have I said that?

What's up Doc.

But not stupid, rich, old "White (Orange) Males"

Is there such a candidate as a slightly swarthy, gay,  pre-retirement, moderately well off,  philanthropic, clever conservative (Box Ticker)....Perhaps not....Those beer swilling, gun toting, carnivorous, backwoodsrealmenandwomen are never going to buy into that one.

So how about just a good old decent ordinary person......Nope wouldn't work.....No one's going to buy into that bullshit, either.

So how about, simply, a rich, old, sensible, white male, conservative.....Who obviously wouldn't be orange, and would also not be over-stressed by that stupid old, counting all the votes rule......Devoted to his childhood sweetheart of a wife (Skeleton-less Cupboard)....Sort of Bidenesque really, but perhaps in their 50's......Also too boring perhaps.

How about Bugs Bunny Doc?......Everyone loves Bugs Bunny don't they?

All except those conservative Mickey's That is.

How about a Woman then......Dear oh dear, should they even be allowed to vote Doc?

And spaghetti grows on trees.

Nope.

Information is information.

Though formatively we have greater ability to absorb and store data, and there is often also a greater pressure to absorb and store specific data. It's like being programmed with specific software.

As we get older,  we increasingly have less capacity for storage and recall..... And also place less significance on new data, in terms of internal decision making.....And unlike a computer, we do not simply uninstall and re-programme.

Hence why I think like me, and Tarik thinks like Tarik.....Same organic operating mechanism, different programme of information.

It was April fools day.

And I assumed you were being foolish especially as you misspelled SUDOKU.

Not that you don't have a tendency to leave me confused anyway.

And SODOKU is Rat bite fever.

So SODUKU SODOKU SUDOKU were the trinity of confusion.

Notwithstanding the possibility of multidimensional possibilities.

How many possible 6 word variants of KUDOS are there?

Yep.

Things have changed a tad since then though. Particularly in regard to the importance and variety of Church. Nonetheless if all individuals and organisations  worked for the common good of each other, then we would surely exist in a utopia.....But sadly that's not how things have ever panned out.

"Church" in the broader sense has always been divisive, even Christianity within Christianity was and still is divisive....What we are as ever reliant upon, is still the sensibilities of the individual in respect of humanity rather than in respect of a particular church.

State and religion should be separate.

I regard religions as spare time amusements/hobbies..... Like cycling.....Fun on a Sunday.....There to be enjoyed......But one shouldn't be compelled to wear lycra  when one goes to the supermarket.

Sudoku

Sodoku

Soduku

The triple prime coefficient, that extends the radii of the arc of a great circle and a fantastic polyhedra.......Irrational, insane and insensible.

Rats, doughnuts, black holes and number puzzles..selzzup rebmun dna seloh kcalb ,stunhguod ,staR

Imperfect symmetry....Becky?

@SupaDupa.

Trump lacked.

Unfortunately though, he didn't lack wealth and influence.

Nonetheless, SupaDupa's downer on J.T. was somewhat misplaced and overshadowed by the severity of C-19.

Employing a metaphorical wall.....I would suggest that the foundations of Tarik's arguments were well constructed.

That is to say, that he was formerly taught to accept, without question.

But do you think that his current questioning, is indicative of  cracks appearing in his brickwork?

Willows in their various guises, was an entertaining radical.

Though in terms of social control, "banning" religion would be a futile experiment....Banning just evokes a counter movement.

Nowadays  more subtle ways of changing peoples minds are evolving.

What do you think?

I wouldn't refer to Tarik as an obtuse wall.

Like us all, Tarik has been conditioned to think in a certain way.....I think that it is good that they wish to discuss  issues which bother them.

Social conditioning.

Though aside from this:

How much of an influence technological conditioning has, and will have in the future, must also be considered.

As I continue to state, it really is all about the acquisition, storage and utilisation of data.

Not to be confused with inherent information, responsible for basic function......Whereby social cooperation is vital for survival.

Though as a species we have somewhat developed beyond this basic state... In other words, we are able to assume or develop  notions such as morality and immorality.

Principle:

Another word with multiple definitions, that require careful consideration.

For sure, the definition that you give above is correct...But only correct within a specific self serving context.

For example... The fundamental principles of a particular religion are only fundamentally truthful within the context of that religion....Outside of that religion, it's principles are meaningless in terms of fundamental truth.... Simply becoming the insignificant principles of a particular religion.

"Subjective immorality", in terms of definition, would be what one assumes or considers to be immoral.....Objective immorality would be exactly the same, because both are derived of the same process.....Internal processing and output of stored data.....I still hold that objective output  is fundamentally subjective output....Though that does not preclude factual correctness.....But as we have discussed before, both subjective output and objective output may or may not be factually correct....Correctness depends upon the veracity of stored data and the veracity of the original data source.

So for example, if one stores data concerning morality and principles based upon a particular religion, then those morals and principles cannot be regarded as universally truthful, unless the original data source can be proven to be derived from a universal and unquestionable source....Which has never been the case.

And I use the word universal, because I think that it is more suggestive of a basic external reality...... Whereas "fundamental" can be widely applied to any manner of basic principles.....The fundamental basis of bread is dough.

Yep.

Self serving interests.....It's called survival.

And a society is either governed or not.....And I think that not, isn't  the more comfortable option.

You asked me to present a narrative in respect of "subjective morality"........Which is what I did.....All true to definition.

The above statement is a contradiction in terms.

How you conduct yourself is entirely down to you.

That was my point.

You're as reliant on a nanny state as the next person is.

It's how the system works.

The big conspiracy, is just a distraction.....Always has been.

Work places vary considerably.

Life ain't all smartly dressed, office bound, screen drooling, computer poking.

It amuses me that nowadays so many people are oppressed, wasting their lives staring at and poking devices..... Devices that supposedly were going to free us from the oppression of labour......Clearly, oppression is as oppression does, and there's no real freedom from it.

Though there's always Artisan Baking to fall back on, when one becomes technologically burnt out.

The fact is, we are all slaves to our own existence. 

Why would I waste my time?....I have far too much to be getting on with.

I will get myself vaccinated, continue to take necessary safety precautions, and as ever, avoid stupid people.

I always find it interesting that we as citizens elect political and administrative representatives....And then spend the next 4 or 5 years assuming a great conspiracy and vilifying our elected representatives.

Checks and balances I suppose.

Though if social governance doesn't suit you, then go convene with nature in the backwoods somewhere.

I guessing though, that when push actually comes to shove, you're as reliant on the nanny state and nanny media, as the next person is.

Subjective morality:

A particular system of values and principles of conduct, based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

And narrative is narrative....You're trying to redefine narrative now.

There is no form to a concept, just thought.

Actions that we regard as being morally influenced may come with an accompanying narrative.

But words and actions are all internally generated, and all internal generated thoughts and associated and actions are personal, even if they conform to a recognised standard.

So in reality, objective morality is subjective, even if the accompanying narrative that we might choose to articulate, attempts to suggest otherwise.

We both have personal views concerning morality which we present here as narrative, both are subjective opinions.

And the "slick" jibe was unnecessary.....All that it achieved was a diminishment of your usual stoicism.

Yep.

That's one side of the political argument.

Though I'm not certain that viruses respond to politics.

@RatMan

Perfect.

#47

Mr A in top form.

In all honesty.....That question was grammatically unintelligible.

I've no idea what you were asking.

Undoubtedly.

Though "The Race card"  is still about wealth and power  (as it ever was), rather than about fairness and equality.

A dark skinned person will sell their dark skinned brother down the river without a care, if there's value in doing so. 

As will all colours and all variations and in all configurations.

Except for Sages, such as ourselves.

Weird is as weird does.

What you meant to say and what you did say were two different things.

Though I did understand what you meant to say......So I was being a tad pedantic.

And you be happy too....As it's the best way to be.

A. Lockdowns and social distancing rules, tried to prevent stupid people form being stupid....Tall order I know.

B. Sweden is already regretting it's course of action, which actually achieved nothing positive in terms of public health (Quite the opposite it now appears). Sweden's governing concerns were aimed more at maintaining trade and finance, rather than focussing on a positive public health policy.

C. Just been talking to a guy who still  after 8 months, has nowhere near fully recovered from the effects of Covid and he is neither old nor fat.....Though age and fitness are undoubtedly factors that can exacerbate the effects of the virus...... Nonetheless it's a tad selfish if cocky youngsters don't respect older less fit people. (See stupid people above).

And no. I'm far from gullible....I'm 60 and wise and thin and fit and I will do what I think is necessary to stay that way.

And corporate media will just as happily promote conspiracy theory if there is a buck to be made from it.

And you will believe what you choose to believe, and corporate media will supply you with the relevant data.

Hmmm. Not sure about any of that.

We can articulate,  and what we might  personally articulate will be derived from stored data and based upon or inspired by a thought.....Which would be the same process and function for any thought based articulation.

Even if we recite a narrative, the data is inputted and processed before it is articulated.

And I don't see a major difference between moralities in terms of process, though the content will undoubtedly vary.

Objective and subjective  are both defined words that represent concepts, and can also be expressed in an articulated format.

So I see no reason why the ideas/concepts of subjective morality or objective morality cannot be presented as a narrative and articulated.

Though none of this affects the contention.....That, in real terms morality is only a subjective concept, rather than an external reality.

Does this site need a lawyer?

Because that is the question that you actually asked.

Apologies for my pedanticism.

But anyone that aspires to be a lawyer, will need to be a slave to detail.

Every story has it's heroes and villains.

Existence...Well there's another word.....And how it relates to both material existence and conceptual existence  is questionable.

Does a thought exist or is it just the intangible product of internal processing?

The latter would suggest that in terms of product, neither objective or subjective output is existent.

The process is only really indicative of our existence.....I think therefore I am.

So morality would also be no more than an intangible thought. 

Nice Maths.

But death is death.

And though medical intervention undoubtedly exacerbates the problems facing the planet.

When the ball does land in your court, you're f****d if you haven't got a racquet.

Nice metaphor hey?

@SupaDupa

But a great holiday destination....And long may it remain so.

And "relatively peaceful" even if you live on Cyprus.....How does one quantify relative peace.....It's either peaceful or not, isn't it?

Nonetheless, here's to happy Greeks and to all happy Greek expat's, and here's to a relatively peaceful World in general.

Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, then the statistics are  clear.

The risk to health from Covid-19 infection is high.....2.8 million deaths globally.

Vaccination and ongoing vaccination, is simply an acquired human ability/strategy, to counter such a threat to health and society, in both the short and longer terms.

We tend not to run with the ethos of survival of the fittest these days. ( Which may or may not actually be an incorrect or unrealistic ethos, in respect of global overpopulation).

And hoping that the virus will just eventually give up and go away, is also currently, not a realistic aspiration.

Nonetheless.....However one chooses to proceed doesn't alter the  fact that to achieve immunity one accepts a risk.....So you must decide for yourself which route currently poses the greater risk to your wellbeing.

I would suggest that if you are fit and 16, then go for the natural option, but if you are 60 and not so fit then consider vaccination.

I wish you all the best either way.

Ditto.

OK Doc.

So you think that you get it?

So tell me what you get?

Not necessarily Doc.

Though, I like the succinct  one liners, which say so much about you and make you conversationally attractive.

I do know what you mean......In your view morality is objective.....One isn't doubting your view.

But this opinion of yours is based on hearsay rather than an absolute fact.

Hearsay may well be recorded to a narrative and become well established, and as such, also become regarded as an established fact......The idiosyncrasies of words and language and data transfer, as we have discussed before many times.

Americans dropping bombs on the bad guys, also kills children and innocent civilians.....Undeniably.

Selective morality Doc.

So fuck the foetus, and fuck GOD.

What say you Doc?

I made a generalization regarding increased life expectancy in recent times, relative to medical intervention, including vaccines.

But Mr A. has now got his rhetorical head on (only to be expected) in an attempt to quell his trypanophobia.....Only joking.

You seemed to avoid this with the obscure reply: "How have you determined death".....Perhaps you could clarify.

Interesting how things have turned out then.

Did said researchers also consider the development of intellect and temperament in relation to dietary development?

You've proved it.

A. "By staying true to your views".....Views are undoubtedly subjective, therefore a moral view is a subjective view.

B. Therefore you have subjective principles.

Objectivity is only really applicable to provable facts.....Nonetheless I still hold that any internal data management and output is inherently subjective.

Ok.