Sociopath Community

Morality is a completely failed system where people with power (the same power that exists only because of belief in morality) do whatever they want. For morality to exist, there must be hierarchy and people that actively break those same moral rules. This is why shit like Epstein's island happens, or molestation via power venues and it's because of bullshit morality that always evolves into "rules for thee, but not for me." It's better to have nihilism or realism, so people actually protect their lives and materials (including their brain's health) instead of praising vulnerability and creating bitter feedback loops.

Spatial only hates wokeness, because it denies morality its power to exploit as effectively, when people are realistic instead of idealistic/vulnerable due to moral beliefs that hierarchy always loves to break and exploit.

The reason why people protect their children for example, is because they don't want brain damage to happen to them (trauma creates measurable brain damage) and it's not actually because there's such thing as moral wrongness, which there isn't. Instead of having faith in morality, which basically just opens them up to the unnecessary possibility of "immorality," they can just be reasonable and not make them vulnerable.

Was the Earth flat until a better model was realized?

Aristotle's virtue ethics was novel for its time because it was very grounding compared to the dominant moral heirarchy at the time for Greece which was that morals came from an imperceivable higher source unattainable for some. Plato was a moralist gatekeeper of intangible "goodness," which was largely used to discredit opposition to his idealistic society of the "correct" philosopher kings being divine word over the city-state because they were supposedly the only ones capable of perceiving reality from the "true" Source, allowing these elites to define morality to whatever suited their agendas.


I'm sure virtue ethics were very beneficial for integrating ethics into the actual life of the citizens so that everyone could realize their potential to benefit mutually from society through this balancing system but the actual utility of this ethical network has too many caveats to be thoroughly relevant, even in 300 BCE.

When used to determine if one, let alone multiple scenerios are ethical, the principles of balance between extremes become intangible and imperceptible for more nuanced and complex problems, subject to change based on current cultural miasmas and individual tendencies.

Was the flat earth a better model before it was realised? No. But it should've been the world view until a better model was realised. Earth was not flat, we just didn't know it. We were wrong. However, disconnecting scientific theory from the truth risks psychosis. If we say that we have this nice construct, which we call science, which can describe the reality, as opposed to "being" reality, we are doomed to walk towards constructivism. The world conforms to natural laws, and science is not a construction.

It is, in my opinion, very, very dangerous to say that science is not real. That's the road to mass psychosis. I blame the 1930s logical positivism, constructivism, and quantum mechanics (especially the Copenhagen school) for all of this idiocy. 

Skepticism promotes nihilism and idiocy and goes against Occam's principle. Promoting skepticism is a great way to stall progress and promote people who do nothing to the upper echelons of society. I argue that skepticism has done nothing good for society. I promote Husserl's view of science -- science as rooted in its servitude to the meaning of life or the lifeworld. Science without lifeworld is pointless.

Some people criticize Husserl because he's like Donquixote, idiotic in his answers, but nobody laughs at his ambition. I adopt Husserl's view unless someone shows there's something better.

So my question is the same as Spatial's: If not virtue ethics, what's better? Sam Harris? 

You're making a bit of a mess there. It was but a simple question and you give me a nearly 2 hour response.

It's a bit disappointing to see that there's no response. Perhaps Qualia has not read Sam Harris or listened to his debates.

If you want to hear an interesting debate, I'd recommend watching Matt Dillahunty vs Jordan Peterson. I used to think Matt destroyed Jordan, but after watching Matt I've realised he's a lost cause. He's good at debating, and you can tell he makes more sense than Jordan. However, he is not very good at living up to his ideals. He is fat, balding, petty, pedantic, self-righteous, smug, narcissistic, and "gleeful". He truly enjoys embarrassing people in front of an audience. Those who follow in his wake are some of the worst persons on this Earth. He's the epitome of "do as I say, not as I do." Jordan is marginally better, but not much. 

The problem of Sam Harris is that he's the most boring person to listen to on the face of Earth. I fall asleep as I listen to him talk. It's like you took the least passionate, most monotonic, and most rambling person and asked them to preach logic to an audience of impassionate professors, who forgot why they were interested in their subject in the first place. That is the crux of Jordan Peterson's criticism of Sam Harris' world view, and I agree. 

There is no passion in rationalism. 

Just take a look at the comments section of a Christian youtube video. Then take a look at Matt Dillahunty's. Then Jordan Peterson's. You can see which moral framework is the most successful in promoting good in this world. Autists can make all sorts of arguments about morality, but they ring hollow when we take a look at the success of these models in practice. 

 

- **We don’t know what well-being is**: Harris treats well-being as an open-ended but ultimately navigable concept, analogous to “health” in medicine—we may debate edge cases, but we know cholera is bad for health and the Taliban is bad for well-being.

He contradicts himself here. The whole separating facts and values is just that. There's no real separating values from being factual, that's a deluded way of speculating it.

 He doesn't really contradict himself in the logical sense. He and Matt both argue basically for the scientific principle, which state that scientific theories converge on the "truth" but perhaps never reach it.

So, for example, we can understand gravity by studying objects that orbit each other. Galileo Galilei first understood gravity, and then later on Isaac Newton, until Albert Einstein came along. Albert Einstein's gravity is "true" but if we one day find out that we were wrong about the theory of gravity than general relativity, then we'd adopt something different. It doesn't mean that there "is" a better theory of gravity. The argument is that there's a grounding to scientific theories -- the experiment or observation. There is one truth -- the way gravity "actually" works. I promote scientific realism, so one step further, I say that general relativity "is" true, and I live like the science I believe in is true, which is the highest form of belief one can have.

In the same sense, Matt and Sam both argue that they can apply the scientific method on morality, with "well-being" being the same as gravity in the analogue. One could guess that gravity is the thing that pulls apples to the ground, but ultimately at some point we'd observe that the theory of gravity is wrong: Newton's gravity could explain planetary orbits, while Galileo's understanding of gravity couldn't. In a similar way, we could come up with a theory of well-being. One could guess that taking an axe and chopping someone's head is a good way to live a moral life, but then we observe at some point that it's not good for well-being, so we stop doing it and adopt something better. So their "grounding" is the observational fact of well-being -- the one true well-being that is as true as gravity is true.

They'd argue that well-being is a true concept insofar as our current theory says it's true, like gravity is true insofar as our current theory describes it. However, we can't explain singularities in black holes, so there are things we don't understand about gravity -- similarly, there are things about the concept of well-being that we don't understand. However, there is one truth -- what gravity "actually" is, just like there is one truth about what well-being "actually" is.

What I argue is that it's an impassionate way to look at morality and is doomed to fail as a project. It's a tool, which can help mathematize our decisions among many other tools, but morality itself is not rational. The moment that people start thinking of morality as a human construct, we are already well on our way to mayhem.

Morality is not philosophized or mathematized, it is demonstrated. 

Mhm Yes. Rubbish I say.

Had an interesting conversation after this. It found that the ancients got it right and provides a more robust structure for morality. It mentioned how every value in virtue ethics isn't waiting for science to validate it, as it's been working the whole time. It's also very dangerous to allow science to dictate what's right and wrong in a political landscape such as ours. Thinking otherwise will make one antiscience while more woke idiots sit on the throne of famous science. I say famous cause it wouldn't be popular, like shitty pronouns and fake gender studies

Yes, it wouldn't be popular, and isn't. It doesn't achieve what it pertains to achieve.

I see Sam Harris' view as a constructivist view, and yes, in my opinion this leads to millions of genders and disconnect with reality. 

Jada said: 

So my question is the same as Spatial's: If not virtue ethics, what's better? Sam Harris? 

You're making a bit of a mess there. It was but a simple question and you give me a nearly 2 hour response.

It's a bit disappointing to see that there's no response. Perhaps Qualia has not read Sam Harris or listened to his debates.

I laid it down nice and gentle so the question is clearly not to offend.

On the other hand I also know there is no answer.

What I was hoping for was more insight on what motivates people to demote virtue ethics. Like what makes them see it as a bad thing ? Could be it offends them as they don't want the world to see how they are on the inside. Maybe they find it to be a social construct that keeps them at bay in this world, while the masses adopt this social construct so we "think" it's a good thing, then act like it's a good thing. It's been written long ago how there's nothing new under the Sun. I believe it. Yet people would argue, "It's old so it must be expired and something better is bound to surface" sometimes with a "If it feels good, you go do it" glorifying degeneracy while hating on functionality. 

Golden rule of Christ is solid. If you want someone to do you dirty, then do dirty to others. You'll also get it's effects. It amazes me how people can grow up and not realize the reality of this.   

If you want to hear an interesting debate, I'd recommend watching Matt Dillahunty vs Jordan Peterson. I used to think Matt destroyed Jordan, but after watching Matt I've realised he's a lost cause. He's good at debating, and you can tell he makes more sense than Jordan. However, he is not very good at living up to his ideals. He is fat, balding, petty, pedantic, self-righteous, smug, narcissistic, and "gleeful". He truly enjoys embarrassing people in front of an audience. Those who follow in his wake are some of the worst persons on this Earth. He's the epitome of "do as I say, not as I do." Jordan is marginally better, but not much. 

Not Jordan's best performance. 

I knew a guy who became atheist and would regularly tell me there is no God. He was a Christopher Hitchens fan and would nod along with everything he said. In practice he was a bit of a dick. I know cause he used to be a housemate. One time I had a brand new shirt on a chair, I was somewhere close to the corner, and I watched this guy walk buy, grabs my shirt, walks out the door, and puts the shirt in the backseat of his car and I never saw it again. 

He would bang on the bathroom door and ask if i'd be long... EVERY TIME. I started calculating and would wait till he uses it before I do, and I swear 5 minutes in he'll come pounding. He'd do it to the other housemate too.

At the time there was no unlimited home internet, and he was a big downloader, movies all day long. The internet was also his so he kicked me off of it. I was stuck with 1GB of mobile data a month. Whatever, no streaming for me, and I'm not going to lounge on the sofa watching his TV like his bitch either. We'd take turns buying toilet paper, then he started with it's my turn to buy toilet paper every 2nd time, while there were 3 of us. I buy, it vanishes extra fast, then they buy, then it's my turn to supply again. I just did it, no reaction. He was turning the other guy against me, though sometimes the other guy and me would kinda gossip about him. I was popular with the ladies on the block, like 6 of them. One of them was upset with me and even that got under his skin. He attacked my GF once saying how she won't get this job position she applied for, wrecking her self esteem. She got the job and was put in his place. He hated that I had love in my life it seemed. 

He became that way when I recovered from heartbreak. My ex comes running back as always and my crush returned. Even the cat stayed clear of him and only hang with me when home. Hearing this you'd think he would be a younger inexperienced person but hes 27 years older than I.

He wanted to throw out the kitchen table set, and did, which is where I would entertain my ladies. You get it, long list of violations. Poor ethics right. It was an attached townhouse, and he would blast his movies so the sounds of machine guns and explosions would rumble throughout the neighbors houses. Girl next door called me and asked if we can turn it down. I told him and he first response was "WHY !? BECAUSE YOU"RE ON THE PHONE !?" when I told him it was the girl next door he was like Oh... -15% volume or some shit like that. 

I left that place, so a spot was open. Because I put up with so much shit without pushing back, he was bound to get someone with lesser values and tolerance than I. 

I visited there at one point and the new guy was the other guys friend from Ireland, he was a DJ, very loud, unapologetic.  They'd get trashed everyday, one of them got fucked up and pissed in the fridge, and my friennemy is telling me about it while saying "I don't think they're very smart". That, and the other guy he turned on me had no respect for him, he just wasn't confrontational and would be quiet about the bullshit going on in there. They can't look me in the eye.

Watch this now. 

Virtue Ethics right....How's life. He was running out of money, and I had money landing on my lap. While being civil about the past, there was no way I was going to help him. He burned bridges with friends, and places he worked, couldn't find a job in his 60's. He pierced himself daily with resentment for old bosses. Had him cut his bullshit with another friend of ours so he once again had access to a machine shop, though things were different. He did it to himself. 

I'm living in a multi millionaire's condo for CHEEEEEEEEP, in one of the richest area codes in Toronto. Learning how to invest. about business, how to grow wealth, surrounding myself with more positive energies and all that good stuff. I had a billionaire living 2 stories above my head. He passed away and went down as a Great Canadian. He was the CEO of Tridel. 

Virtue Ethics. If I were a dick, none of this would have fallen into place.  Frienemy is shaking his head and is like damn, it's nice when people love you. Of course it is. It's not like we can suckerpunch someone in the face and they'll do business with us.

I'll leave it there but point I'm making is, virtue ethics is a discovery, not an invention. It's instilled in us naturally.  He lost everyone. Funny enough, the last thing he ever said to me was Merry Christmas via text, then we never spoke again. He knows I wasn't into it, and him even saying that to me would've been a manipulation tactic. He used to boast about being smarter than me while I can see his internals and modify him with ease if I wanted to. Little Man Syndrome, doesn't take much to trigger and direct him. 

The more scornful an atheist is, the more rotten people will back them, That magician guy, Penn. You can see the pride on his face with a grin geared to provoke while he enjoys Godlessness. Then there's the people who cheer it on and you can see they aren't exactly the uplifting type.

The problem of Sam Harris is that he's the most boring person to listen to on the face of Earth. I fall asleep as I listen to him talk. It's like you took the least passionate, most monotonic, and most rambling person and asked them to preach logic to an audience of impassionate professors, who forgot why they were interested in their subject in the first place. That is the crux of Jordan Peterson's criticism of Sam Harris' world view, and I agree. 

There is no passion in rationalism. 

Just take a look at the comments section of a Christian youtube video. Then take a look at Matt Dillahunty's. Then Jordan Peterson's. You can see which moral framework is the most successful in promoting good in this world. Autists can make all sorts of arguments about morality, but they ring hollow when we take a look at the success of these models in practice. 

Next time I look him up it won't be on my main accounts. I don't want him randomly showing up in my feed. His stuff is pretty basic. I also don't think someone like him would settle if all his research concluded was that the ancients got it right, as it would make him appear behind and instead of replacing genuine wisdom and being the savior of humanity, he'd be on the scientific blooper reel until the end of civilization.  

- **We don’t know what well-being is**: Harris treats well-being as an open-ended but ultimately navigable concept, analogous to “health” in medicine—we may debate edge cases, but we know cholera is bad for health and the Taliban is bad for well-being.

He contradicts himself here. The whole separating facts and values is just that. There's no real separating values from being factual, that's a deluded way of speculating it.

 He doesn't really contradict himself in the logical sense. He and Matt both argue basically for the scientific principle, which state that scientific theories converge on the "truth" but perhaps never reach it.

So, for example, we can understand gravity by studying objects that orbit each other. Galileo Galilei first understood gravity, and then later on Isaac Newton, until Albert Einstein came along. Albert Einstein's gravity is "true" but if we one day find out that we were wrong about the theory of gravity than general relativity, then we'd adopt something different. It doesn't mean that there "is" a better theory of gravity. The argument is that there's a grounding to scientific theories -- the experiment or observation. There is one truth -- the way gravity "actually" works. I promote scientific realism, so one step further, I say that general relativity "is" true, and I live like the science I believe in is true, which is the highest form of belief one can have.

In the same sense, Matt and Sam both argue that they can apply the scientific method on morality, with "well-being" being the same as gravity in the analogue. One could guess that gravity is the thing that pulls apples to the ground, but ultimately at some point we'd observe that the theory of gravity is wrong: Newton's gravity could explain planetary orbits, while Galileo's understanding of gravity couldn't. In a similar way, we could come up with a theory of well-being. One could guess that taking an axe and chopping someone's head is a good way to live a moral life, but then we observe at some point that it's not good for well-being, so we stop doing it and adopt something better. So their "grounding" is the observational fact of well-being -- the one true well-being that is as true as gravity is true.

They'd argue that well-being is a true concept insofar as our current theory says it's true, like gravity is true insofar as our current theory describes it. However, we can't explain singularities in black holes, so there are things we don't understand about gravity -- similarly, there are things about the concept of well-being that we don't understand. However, there is one truth -- what gravity "actually" is, just like there is one truth about what well-being "actually" is.

What I argue is that it's an impassionate way to look at morality and is doomed to fail as a project. It's a tool, which can help mathematize our decisions among many other tools, but morality itself is not rational. The moment that people start thinking of morality as a human construct, we are already well on our way to mayhem.

Morality is not philosophized or mathematized, it is demonstrated. 

I'd argue well-being, or morality is a mechanism given to us by the creator. Not very scientific, but it's important for the functionality of our species. If there were no guilt and shame, no fear of consequence we so wouldn't have made it this far. We'd be like cannibalistic reptiles toward one another. We require care and protection in our early years.

Now if science starts diving into what well being actually is, they'll have to include what I just said. Anyone who survived infancy did so out of well being. It really isn't too mysterious though to an atheist it will be, as they'd refuse to entertain the idea that we're made by an intelligence, aware of our needs in order to succeed as this kind of animal.  It's a moral compass and without it, we'd have been long gone. It's linked to feeling emotions as stepping away from morality makes one uncomfortable. Now I know there are people who feel no way about babies getting chopped up, and who knows, maybe they'd have the nerve to do it themselves. If a majority was like that we'd be back to stardust from the time we began.  

Mhm Yes. Rubbish I say.

Had an interesting conversation after this. It found that the ancients got it right and provides a more robust structure for morality. It mentioned how every value in virtue ethics isn't waiting for science to validate it, as it's been working the whole time. It's also very dangerous to allow science to dictate what's right and wrong in a political landscape such as ours. Thinking otherwise will make one antiscience while more woke idiots sit on the throne of famous science. I say famous cause it wouldn't be popular, like shitty pronouns and fake gender studies

Yes, it wouldn't be popular, and isn't. It doesn't achieve what it pertains to achieve.

I see Sam Harris' view as a constructivist view, and yes, in my opinion this leads to millions of genders and disconnect with reality. 

Collectively and intuitively the world would know it's untrue. 

Dragoonback said: 

Morality is a completely failed system where people with power (the same power that exists only because of belief in morality) do whatever they want. For morality to exist, there must be hierarchy and people that actively break those same moral rules. This is why shit like Epstein's island happens, or molestation via power venues and it's because of bullshit morality that always evolves into "rules for thee, but not for me." It's better to have nihilism or realism, so people actually protect their lives and materials (including their brain's health) instead of praising vulnerability and creating bitter feedback loops.

Godless heathens really love to come out and stir around during Christmas of all possible times. 

This entire thread is agonizing to read.

Morality (of which virtue emanates from) comes from nothing other than God, and we were all born sinners. We must crawl to the altar and pray to ever attain any sense of humility. Humility, a virtue most saints even forget!

I was at my darkest point and when I reached for God, and I took mass and went to confess, I was saved. This has happened numerous times. God always forgives.

When no one believes in you, God does. My ex-wife tried to stop me from gambling and she deserved it because she 1- Never attended Mass with me. (I was faithless during our relationship, but one trip to the Cathedral would have solved all my problems (and hers too) 2- Talked to other people. 3- Thought she is smarter than me. (She isn't.) 4- Purposefully upset my OCD. 5- Constantly tried to compete with me instead of being submissive. 6-Incited my fury willfully because she is a deranged masochist. 8. She was forbidden to leave me and her toll is likely immense because she did leave so I now think back to her fondly with pity and pious contemplation. I'll never let a woman tell me what to do again. But God believed in me and was with me in that casino. Of course I lost everything, but that was the point.

Allow me a thought experiment I don't believe that I use against Atheists to help them know God vicariously while I pray for their souls, to show them the light:

The Garden of Eden is a metaphor. Dragonsback and SpatialMind are homosexuals for good reasons. I don't support it and I have already gone to confession for my crimes that I do resist because I don't want to end up in hell like them. But believe me, I do get it, women are evil. Perhaps there was no real garden, no real fall from the truth. Perhaps humans have always been brutes. I mean we have found remains of ancient humans with far larger brains than our rival ancestors at the time who our ancestors killed just because they could and the more intelligent tribe was too peaceful due to their isolated conditions. But that's not the point. Considered as a hypothetical, the Garden of Eden makes more sense (to Atheists). The snake is knowledge. Knowledge = pain. When Eve ate the Apple/Pomegranate (my lineage has it depicted as a pomegranate in their ancient art), she opened a portal directly to Hell. Now, none of this is inherently bad. It is just designed to make us feel bad so that our souls are more receptive to the Truth which we can only find in God. We are saved because we are guilty. Only because we are sinners, are we ever saved! It is a blessing. To drink from the sacred Goblet, to take of Christs' flesh and blood, to feel oneself nailed to that cross like he was, that is liberation.

God forgives, God saves, God does it all.

Amen.

SedeVacante said: 

The Garden of Eden is a metaphor. Dragonsback and SpatialMind are homosexuals for good reasons.

 I'm so not a Homosexual. Who told you that ?

SedeVacante said: 

Godless heathens really love to come out and stir around during Christmas of all possible times. 

This entire thread is agonizing to read.

Morality (of which virtue emanates from) comes from nothing other than God, and we were all born sinners. We must crawl to the altar and pray to ever attain any sense of humility. Humility, a virtue most saints even forget!

I was at my darkest point and when I reached for God, and I took mass and went to confess, I was saved. This has happened numerous times. God always forgives.

When no one believes in you, God does. My ex-wife tried to stop me from gambling and she deserved it because she 1- Never attended Mass with me. (I was faithless during our relationship, but one trip to the Cathedral would have solved all my problems (and hers too) 2- Talked to other people. 3- Thought she is smarter than me. (She isn't.) 4- Purposefully upset my OCD. 5- Constantly tried to compete with me instead of being submissive. 6-Incited my fury willfully because she is a deranged masochist. 8. She was forbidden to leave me and her toll is likely immense because she did leave so I now think back to her fondly with pity and pious contemplation. I'll never let a woman tell me what to do again. But God believed in me and was with me in that casino. Of course I lost everything, but that was the point.

 

Allow me a thought experiment I don't believe that I use against Atheists to help them know God vicariously while I pray for their souls, to show them the light:

The Garden of Eden is a metaphor. Dragonsback and SpatialMind are homosexuals for good reasons. I don't support it and I have already gone to confession for my crimes that I do resist because I don't want to end up in hell like them. But believe me, I do get it, women are evil. Perhaps there was no real garden, no real fall from the truth. Perhaps humans have always been brutes. I mean we have found remains of ancient humans with far larger brains than our rival ancestors at the time who our ancestors killed just because they could and the more intelligent tribe was too peaceful due to their isolated conditions. But that's not the point. Considered as a hypothetical, the Garden of Eden makes more sense (to Atheists). The snake is knowledge. Knowledge = pain. When Eve ate the Apple/Pomegranate (my lineage has it depicted as a pomegranate in their ancient art), she opened a portal directly to Hell. Now, none of this is inherently bad. It is just designed to make us feel bad so that our souls are more receptive to the Truth which we can only find in God. We are saved because we are guilty. Only because we are sinners, are we ever saved! It is a blessing. To drink from the sacred Goblet, to take of Christs' flesh and blood, to feel oneself nailed to that cross like he was, that is liberation.

God forgives, God saves, God does it all.

Amen.

Brain size has no relation to intelligence. Even Einstein pointed out how his brain was not very different from any human's. I don't think there's any liberation in feeling sacrificed for a species, that yes, has always been "brutes." Gambling is just more proof why romanticist religious mindset is so harmful, because statistically speaking gambling is just a completely bad idea unless you are counting cards or something and not being obsessed with the gambling itself which is why romanticists should avoid gambling. It's also ironic because you give money/status/attention to whatever ugly duplicitous people  that own/control the casinos/apps.

Dragoonback said: 

We live in a meaningless deterministic entropic universe so none of that makes sense. (I guess it's fun, but people take stuff like that way too far which is how we end up with fascism. If you can blame one individual or instill fear in them, you can blame more, instead of reflecting on overarching systems.)

In California, if you talked this kind of shit my niggas who are in and out of jail would just fucking put a gun in your dumb face and smoke you. Nigga from atoms you come and to atoms you will return.

Jada said: 

 

Skepticism promotes nihilism and idiocy and goes against Occam's principle. Promoting skepticism is a great way to stall progress and promote people who do nothing to the upper echelons of society. I argue that skepticism has done nothing good for society. I promote Husserl's view of science -- science as rooted in its servitude to the meaning of life or the lifeworld. Science without lifeworld is pointless.

Some people criticize Husserl because he's like Donquixote, idiotic in his answers, but nobody laughs at his ambition. I adopt Husserl's view unless someone shows there's something better.

So my question is the same as Spatial's: If not virtue ethics, what's better? Sam Harris? 

 

You're making a bit of a mess there. It was but a simple question and you give me a nearly 2 hour response.

It's a bit disappointing to see that there's no response. Perhaps Qualia has not read Sam Harris or listened to his debates.

If you want to hear an interesting debate, I'd recommend watching Matt Dillahunty vs Jordan Peterson. I used to think Matt destroyed Jordan, but after watching Matt I've realised he's a lost cause. He's good at debating, and you can tell he makes more sense than Jordan. However, he is not very good at living up to his ideals. He is fat, balding, petty, pedantic, self-righteous, smug, narcissistic, and "gleeful". He truly enjoys embarrassing people in front of an audience. Those who follow in his wake are some of the worst persons on this Earth. He's the epitome of "do as I say, not as I do." Jordan is marginally better, but not much. 

The problem of Sam Harris is that he's the most boring person to listen to on the face of Earth. I fall asleep as I listen to him talk. It's like you took the least passionate, most monotonic, and most rambling person and asked them to preach logic to an audience of impassionate professors, who forgot why they were interested in their subject in the first place. That is the crux of Jordan Peterson's criticism of Sam Harris' world view, and I agree. 

There is no passion in rationalism. 

Just take a look at the comments section of a Christian youtube video. Then take a look at Matt Dillahunty's. Then Jordan Peterson's. You can see which moral framework is the most successful in promoting good in this world. Autists can make all sorts of arguments about morality, but they ring hollow when we take a look at the success of these models in practice. 

What I argue is that it's an impassionate way to look at morality and is doomed to fail as a project. It's a tool, which can help mathematize our decisions among many other tools, but morality itself is not rational. The moment that people start thinking of morality as a human construct, we are already well on our way to mayhem.

Morality is not philosophized or mathematized, it is demonstrated. 

Mhm Yes. Rubbish I say.

Had an interesting conversation after this. It found that the ancients got it right and provides a more robust structure for morality. It mentioned how every value in virtue ethics isn't waiting for science to validate it, as it's been working the whole time. It's also very dangerous to allow science to dictate what's right and wrong in a political landscape such as ours. Thinking otherwise will make one antiscience while more woke idiots sit on the throne of famous science. I say famous cause it wouldn't be popular, like shitty pronouns and fake gender studies

Yes, it wouldn't be popular, and isn't. It doesn't achieve what it pertains to achieve.

I see Sam Harris' view as a constructivist view, and yes, in my opinion this leads to millions of genders and disconnect with reality. 

Except the only way science works or improves lives is ironically enough to look past the bias of life as the only way to properly study it and the material around and of it. Jordon Peterson is incredibly more boring the Sam Harris as Peterson is only good at maliciously nonsensical rambling as he tries to be profound while also hating the idea of equality and real challenge that comes from it, which is necessary for people to actually be profound. It's just fascist hatred of a modern world Peterson sees as threatening his old views, and that's always the same point with him. Zero growth, only neo-liberal self-fellatio by someone who also has poor/outdated credentials, which again is also another common trait among fascists, having weak credentials and a hatred towards a feeling of world that strips them of even a little bit of glory/enjoyment. 

"petty, pedantic, self-righteous, smug, narcissistic, and "gleeful." I would say this fits Peterson perfectly. I just think Peterson is a comfort to you so you don't care how he is misleading people, as you also constantly express desire for people to be more pliable while ignoring real world conditions for people, very similar to what Peterson does. And of course you assume its the other one being narcissistic for telling people to be more realistic and look out for themselves above all else, basically to live in and comprehend hard and gloomy reality, in which you've virtually expressed the idea that only richly playful people can be authentic.

Basically I think you are what's wrong with a lot of colleges, being a professor who promotes vulnerability and degrades these institutions by turning them into socialite slave farms that rewards cheaters. (Which again, just proves that morality is gross garbage idea that exploitative people love.)

You want people to be more intelligent and more individualist/personable, yet also want to deny people the least bit of equality, replacing it with morality trying to force people to be more individualistic, intelligent, yet also more pliant and exploitable at the same time. You refuse to admit that something is going to be lost in the process, and that people are going to find the most optimal path for survival, so basically you will get kiss asses, but very little people who are actually intelligent/interesting people, because those people are disadvantaged by your own personal desires and neo-liberal influence. 

Tryptamine said: 

Dragoonback said: 

We live in a meaningless deterministic entropic universe so none of that makes sense. (I guess it's fun, but people take stuff like that way too far which is how we end up with fascism. If you can blame one individual or instill fear in them, you can blame more, instead of reflecting on overarching systems.)

In California, if you talked this kind of shit my niggas who are in and out of jail would just fucking put a gun in your dumb face and smoke you. Nigga from atoms you come and to atoms you will return.

Yes I realize people like you love to use the threat of violent to make people more pliable and usable, and that you'll never see the limits to that, you just see the limits as an inappropriate insult, and not as inherent to the systems you look up to. Even my 95iq makes me seem smarter and rarer by the day thanks to people like you, as people with more intellect, openness, and grace are smoked.

Hate me for saying this or not, but duplicitous assholes like myself are what you are selecting for, as you punish the intelligent and the brave for the innate defiance of those things. Use cheap gratifying methods, get cheap results.