Message Turncoat in a DM to get moderator attention

Users Online(? lurkers):
Posts: 1259
Moral relativism of evil

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Actions speak louder than words when people go kumbia over a group of people they never because of their nation, while for others they do not because of their nation again. On the grand scale of things, it's not looking good.

On the grand scale of things we've steadily grown more 'moral', so I'd say it is looking good.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

That's assuming their actual actions, are partially immoral making them hypocrites, then there is no practice of absolute morality in that picture so it would be impossible for not practicing it to bring reason for hypocrisy.

Morality itself never entails perfection to be absolute.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

The Russian plan attack had more casualties than Paris, 224 to 130. Both attacks were effective. Maybe it's just me, but every time a plane goes down, it makes my eyes bulge.

The attack itself was equally horrific, but the implications and execution was more spectacular and had greater consequences in my opinion. I concede this is subjective though.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

That's true. I think it would be better for the leaders themselves to get into scraps instead of leading on troops to do their work, but that's not good for the fewer. Still we do it their way.

Perhaps we should stop voting these people into power?

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Actually, yes they did mind their business.

.

.

.

It is 100% why they got attacked for it. It's also why the Russian airliner was attacked, cause Russia started attacking them too.

Not a fair response no, it's not an even response either, more hell over there, it's not about fair, they declared war young man, it's what it is.

Is any of what I'm saying not obvious ?

We have international laws we'd like nations to follow and ISIS does not follow them. You could argue this is a declaration of war against the world community in and of itself. So no, they did not mind their own business.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

What we call morality in any language or expression, is NOT a human invention. Even dogs have a sense of morality Inq.

We have instincts, yes, but that is not morality.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Before NATO ruined it, Libya was the best country in the world to live in. Gaddafi made the true American dream.

Best country according to what definition? How many leaders of 'top' world countries do you think would get lynched by their own people?

Posts: 1259
Moral relativism of evil

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Of course it's a criticism. I am pointing out the dark side to moral relativism, and why it isn't even moral at all. Sugar coating it wouldn't exactly help.

You're not even criticizing the moral relativism we have today. No one is claiming a person living in Paris is worth more than someone in Beirut, or that a terror attack in Paris is worse than an identical attack in Beirut. People would still be hypocrites with absolute morality, because there is really no such thing in practice.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

A bomb and some gunfire with less casualties is more spectacular than a passenger plane being blown out of the sky ? Really ?

Come on. Paris was a coordinated attack carried out by several terrorists in an otherwise 'safe' city, and it was in the west. A Russian plane getting blown up in the Middle East is also horrible, but it's easy to see why it's not as spectacular. Also, a better comparison would be the Russian plane to the 'Dutch' plane shot down over Ukraine.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

You should see the size of the bombs the west has done over there. What they've done doesn't work, no matter how many innocent civilians the west kills.

The new humanity is so divided among our own. No arguing it. That is moral relativism right there, and it is arrogantly backward and out of sync with morality.

I get your point, sometimes some people (casualties of war etc.) are de facto 'worth' less. I don't condone or excuse all of it but I do think war and similar situations can't be navigated without having to weigh morals against each other.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Didn't I already say how France was part of a US lead coalition ? See you still don't even know.

France started bombing Syria in September 2015, then 2 months later in November they got attacked.

Everyone's sympathy for Paris is war propaganda perpetuated through the Media, cause they don't want westerners blaming the government for putting them in dangers way.

People think they are doing the right thing as up to this day people carry on about the Paris attack, as though France following the US's agenda wasn't the reason for putting Paris in harms way.

And what did ISIS do before that? Mind their own business in peace?

France decided they wanted to help defeat ISIS, and they probably got attacked because of it. So what? Sounds like you think it was a fair response by ISIS.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Morality is comprised of a higher intelligence, where the outcome isn't calamity, such as displaced civilians and deluded masses.

I disagree. Morality is a social construct.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

The sadness for Paris ? No one was really sad about it, people like to keep up their image. Up to this day some people still sport their Paris flag filters, and spread the whole "never forget" message about it.

People don't feel for the innocent middle eastern people, nor do they for Russian civilians, or 3rd world. Libya was the best place in the world to live at one point, and they were on the verge of topping the fiat dollar by planning to go gold standard, and their currency would actually be gold coins.

Like I said, I think your criticism of 'sheep' is legitimate, but not your criticism of moral relativism in general. People in the west do not feel as much for Russian or third world civilians because of cultural and geographical distance, which is logical. I'd care more if my neighbors got murdered than some random family in Canada, for example, but this does not mean I think their life is worth less.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Over there Gadaffi was a hero, but here he's an accused terrorist. The Scottish already made it clear it wasn't Gadaffi who blew up a US plane over Scotland, but it was Iran seeking revenge for the Persian passenger plane the US accidentally show down a week or so prior.

Gadaffi used to be a hero back in the day, but hardly retained that image domestically during the Arab Spring. He was a dictator and only wanted what was best for himself.

Posts: 2216
Moral relativism of evil

Inquirer stated: source post

You're not even criticizing the moral relativism we have today. No one is claiming a person living in Paris is worth more than someone in Beirut, or that a terror attack in Paris is worse than an identical attack in Beirut.

Actions speak louder than words when people go kumbia over a group of people they never because of their nation, while for others they do not because of their nation again. On the grand scale of things, it's not looking good.

I did criticize it too. People went as far as to lighting candles and gathering together because it was made into a trend as opposed to genuine mass sympathy. I don't condone what happened, but behind the stage the reason for it happening is clear.

 

People would still be hypocrites with absolute morality, because there is really no such thing in practice.

 

That's assuming their actual actions, are partially immoral making them hypocrites, then there is no practice of absolute morality in that picture so it would be impossible for not practicing it to bring reason for hypocrisy.

Morality itself never entails perfection to be absolute.

 

Come on. Paris was a coordinated attack carried out by several terrorists in an otherwise 'safe' city, and it was in the west. A Russian plane getting blown up in the Middle East is also horrible, but it's easy to see why it's not as spectacular

 

The Russian plan attack had more casualties than Paris, 224 to 130. Both attacks were effective. Maybe it's just me, but every time a plane goes down, it makes my eyes bulge.

 

Also, a better comparison would be the Russian plane to the 'Dutch' plane shot down over Ukraine.

Bombed Russian plane went down 12 days before Paris attack, so I compared the west's reaction to this one.

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

You should see the size of the bombs the west has done over there. What they've done doesn't work, no matter how many innocent civilians the west kills.

The new humanity is so divided among our own. No arguing it. That is moral relativism right there, and it is arrogantly backward and out of sync with morality.

I get your point, sometimes some people (casualties of war etc.) are de facto 'worth' less. I don't condone or excuse all of it but I do think war and similar situations can't be navigated without having to weigh morals against each other.

That's true. I think it would be better for the leaders themselves to get into scraps instead of leading on troops to do their work, but that's not good for the fewer. Still we do it their way.

 

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Didn't I already say how France was part of a US lead coalition ? See you still don't even know.

France started bombing Syria in September 2015, then 2 months later in November they got attacked.

Everyone's sympathy for Paris is war propaganda perpetuated through the Media, cause they don't want westerners blaming the government for putting them in dangers way.

People think they are doing the right thing as up to this day people carry on about the Paris attack, as though France following the US's agenda wasn't the reason for putting Paris in harms way.

And what did ISIS do before that? Mind their own business in peace?

 

Actually, yes they did mind their business. See those guys grew up in a world where they were being bombed for well over 20 years by the US, and it goes back even further with other nations bombing them. They all have family and friends, lovers, and even their children who got blown to pieces. The conflicts are always in the interests of the leaders, but in this case these people are very furious so the Islamic state was born.

 

France decided they wanted to help defeat ISIS, and they probably got attacked because of it. So what? Sounds like you think it was a fair response by ISIS.

It is 100% why they got attacked for it. It's also why the Russian airliner was attacked, cause Russia started attacking them too.

Not a fair response no, it's not an even response either, more hell over there, it's not about fair, they declared war young man, it's what it is.

Is any of what I'm saying not obvious ?

 

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Morality is comprised of a higher intelligence, where the outcome isn't calamity, such as displaced civilians and deluded masses.

I disagree. Morality is a social construct.

 

The day you came out of your mothers vagina, you had to be looked after. Neglect would have easily killed you. If not your parents, then someone else would have to look after you. Immorality does exist, and I'm afraid most infants that end up in the trash are not saved.

Social construct my ass. It's necessary, especially if you're human cause when we're born, we're immobile for several weeks, and when we're raised under harsh conditions, we become traumatized and have difficulty functioning. 

The Island of psychopaths theory is most likely a civilization that will collapse, cause a species that lacks morality is a self destructive species, that wouldn't even multiply enough to carry on.

What we call morality in any language or expression, is NOT a human invention. Even dogs have a sense of morality Inq.

 

Like I said, I think your criticism of 'sheep' is legitimate, but not your criticism of moral relativism in general. People in the west do not feel as much for Russian or third world civilians because of cultural and geographical distance, which is logical. I'd care more if my neighbors got murdered than some random family in Canada, for example, but this does not mean I think their life is worth less.

Logic is neither good or bad. Everyone has their own outlook and ways about them. But yes, that's what I'm saying, the victims in Paris is not a good thing, however, the masses portrayed themselves to mourn, when they don't have the capacity to mourn for people they never knew.

If it happened to someone you know, or on your own block, well that's a better excuse to take selfies and light candles.

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Over there Gadaffi was a hero, but here he's an accused terrorist. The Scottish already made it clear it wasn't Gadaffi who blew up a US plane over Scotland, but it was Iran seeking revenge for the Persian passenger plane the US accidentally show down a week or so prior.

Gadaffi used to be a hero back in the day, but hardly retained that image domestically during the Arab Spring. He was a dictator and only wanted what was best for himself.


Before NATO ruined it, Libya was the best country in the world to live in. Gaddafi made the true American dream.

Posts: 2216
Moral relativism of evil

Inquirer stated: source post

 

On the grand scale of things we've steadily grown more 'moral', so I'd say it is looking good.

 

Over 60 wars since the wold war till now, that equates to grater casualties from both world wars. This is not morality growing steadily.

The 40's 50's, 60's 70's 80's and 90's surely had it's share of immorality, but compared to now ? Their worst nightmares are things today's children watch for amusement today.

Do you really believe things have gotten better for Sweden Inq ?

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

That's assuming their actual actions, are partially immoral making them hypocrites, then there is no practice of absolute morality in that picture so it would be impossible for not practicing morality for bringing reason for hypocrisy.

Morality itself never entails perfection to be absolute.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

I patched the above paragraph.

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

The Russian plan attack had more casualties than Paris, 224 to 130. Both attacks were effective. Maybe it's just me, but every time a plane goes down, it makes my eyes bulge.

The attack itself was equally horrific, but the implications and execution was more spectacular and had greater consequences in my opinion. I concede this is subjective though.

I'm not out to make sport of this, but the Russian plane bombing is not that different than 224 people riding a giant missile. The grave consequence began when going to war, cause by going to war a nation makes their civilians less safe.

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Actually, yes they did mind their business.

.

.

.

It is 100% why they got attacked for it. It's also why the Russian airliner was attacked, cause Russia started attacking them too.

Not a fair response no, it's not an even response either, more hell over there, it's not about fair, they declared war young man, it's what it is.

Is any of what I'm saying not obvious ?

We have international laws we'd like nations to follow and ISIS does not follow them. You could argue this is a declaration of war against the world community in and of itself. So no, they did not mind their own business.

Again. These people grew up being bombed.

When a civilization grows up in a world being bombed, losing family and friends, living in fear, a group of bad asses will rise from the ash. If it happened it the west, the same thing would happen, we'd see a resistance come into play.

They do not attack us and intimidate us because of how we live, they attack us because we've been over there for DECADES blowing shit up. And you want to complain about them not obeying any national laws that did nothing to protect them, when it was western law that created this entanglement in the first place ?

 

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

What we call morality in any language or expression, is NOT a human invention. Even dogs have a sense of morality Inq.

We have instincts, yes, but that is not morality.

You're dodging what you've been told. I never mentioned instincts yet you are carrying on as you you're agreeing that we have them. That's another topic.

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Before NATO ruined it, Libya was the best country in the world to live in. Gaddafi made the true American dream.

Best country according to what definition? How many leaders of 'top' world countries do you think would get lynched by their own people?

 

It 'was' the best country according to the American dream, where one has opportunities to do well. It was even better than what we have in the west, cause gas was cheap, electricity was free, the government provides homes as a human right to those who cannot afford them, the banking system is not owned by Rothschild so there is no debt/interest system that enslaves people for generations. If you get married the government will grant you 50 grand for your wedding. This place was too fucking too to be true, but it was. Research it.

The ones who killed Gaddafi, were rebel mercenaries, that government take over lasted 1 year.

The attack was also assisted by NATO including France and the US. So who funded all of this you may ask ?

Libya was debt free, had their own bank, was going to sell their oil only for Gold standard, was going to create gold standard currency rendering the fiat dollar as nothing to them, and wanted to created the United States of Africa.

Since 2007 the US planned to take down Libya, as they would do to any nation that's a threat to their banking system. Today oil is still only bought with US dollars, and no one is using gold standard which would have a nation of people shun the US dollar.

Posts: 1259
Moral relativism of evil

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

On the grand scale of things we've steadily grown more 'moral', so I'd say it is looking good.

Over 60 wars since the wold war till now, that equates to grater casualties from both world wars. This is not morality growing steadily.

The 40's 50's, 60's 70's 80's and 90's surely had it's share of immorality, but compared to now ? Their worst nightmares are things today's children watch for amusement today.

Do you really believe things have gotten better for Sweden Inq ?

Our mistakes are much more deadly today (world wars etc.) but our way of living has become more moral. Do you think they had disability accessibility high on their agenda during the Middle Ages? Or laws against discrimination? Go back a hundred years and our moral progress becomes obvious.

Of course I think things have got better for Sweden.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

That's assuming their actual actions, are partially immoral making them hypocrites, then there is no practice of absolute morality in that picture so it would be impossible for not practicing morality for bringing reason for hypocrisy.

Morality itself never entails perfection to be absolute.

If people claim they're moral but go against that they're hypocrites. Does not matter if the morals are relative or absolute.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

The grave consequence began when going to war, cause by going to war a nation makes their civilians less safe.

Sometimes going to war is moral, and makes civilians safer. If we want the world to be a safe and prosperous place we can't let states like ISIS survive.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

They do not attack us and intimidate us because of how we live, they attack us because we've been over there for DECADES blowing shit up. And you want to complain about them not obeying any national laws that did nothing to protect them, when it was western law that created this entanglement in the first place ?

They attack us because the Middle East has been subjected to post-modern colonialism, and because their faith tells them to kill or convert infidels. Geopolitical factors are not the sole cause here.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

We have instincts, yes, but that is not morality.

You're dodging what you've been told. I never mentioned instincts yet you are carrying on as you you're agreeing that we have them. That's another topic.

You claim morality simply exists, like gravity. I say it's a social construct that we've created to match what we feel, ie. our instincts.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

This place was too fucking too to be true, but it was. Research it.

Show me any study or similar that argues this.

Posts: 2216
Moral relativism of evil

Inquirer stated: source post

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

On the grand scale of things we've steadily grown more 'moral', so I'd say it is looking good.

Over 60 wars since the wold war till now, that equates to grater casualties from both world wars. This is not morality growing steadily.

The 40's 50's, 60's 70's 80's and 90's surely had it's share of immorality, but compared to now ? Their worst nightmares are things today's children watch for amusement today.

Do you really believe things have gotten better for Sweden Inq ?

Our mistakes are much more deadly today (world wars etc.) but our way of living has become more moral. Do you think they had disability accessibility high on their agenda during the Middle Ages? Or laws against discrimination? Go back a hundred years and our moral progress becomes obvious.

Of course I think things have got better for Sweden.

 

I wasn't around to see how disabled were treated in the middle ages, and neither were you. In the modern world, reserved spaces and technology helps a great deal. 

The fact there are even laws on discrimination, doesn't mean there is less of it. In Sweden, I believe Muslim men needn't shake hands with female employers, and if the employer doesn't see him fit, this is discrimination in Sweden. The man was rewarded a large sum of money by the Swedish government from that case.

In Sweden, their laws are hurting your culture.

 

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

That's assuming their actual actions, are partially immoral making them hypocrites, then there is no practice of absolute morality in that picture so it would be impossible for not practicing morality for bringing reason for hypocrisy.

Morality itself never entails perfection to be absolute.

If people claim they're moral but go against that they're hypocrites. Does not matter if the morals are relative or absolute.

 

One can claim to be immoral, and go against that making them a hypocrite as well. Being a hypocrite in itself is only bad if it's a bad thing to be hypocritical about. 

Morality is never solely based on one's claim to be so. But again, morality never entails perfection to be absolute. There's a dark side to demanding perfection out of someone, when we're designed to live and learn. To make mistakes and evolve from them. Morality itself is flexible. 

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

The grave consequence began when going to war, cause by going to war a nation makes their civilians less safe.

Sometimes going to war is moral, and makes civilians safer. If we want the world to be a safe and prosperous place we can't let states like ISIS survive.

Going to war NEVER makes civilians for either side safer. Maybe genocide does, but not war.

War isn't moral either. You're told it is, but it's not. War is a conflict between the few in high places, the ones caught in the crossfire are then used as chess pieces and economic resources.

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

They do not attack us and intimidate us because of how we live, they attack us because we've been over there for DECADES blowing shit up. And you want to complain about them not obeying any national laws that did nothing to protect them, when it was western law that created this entanglement in the first place ?

They attack us because the Middle East has been subjected to post-modern colonialism, and because their faith tells them to kill or convert infidels. Geopolitical factors are not the sole cause here.

 

IRAN.... is bombing isis, if you want to get out of that box, here is an Islamic nation attacking the so called Islamic state.

Their faith teaches them not to kill, but to only kill in self defense.

And again, they grew up in a war zone. These mercenaries are traumatized and angry.

When the majority, that is people that have similar views as yours Inq, begin to understand, a revolution in human morality will evolve to a greater state of being. Raised awareness is key.

 

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

We have instincts, yes, but that is not morality.

You're dodging what you've been told. I never mentioned instincts yet you are carrying on as you you're agreeing that we have them. That's another topic.

You claim morality simply exists, like gravity. I say it's a social construct that we've created to match what we feel, ie. our instincts.

I never claimed morality simply exists like gravity. I said it's not something we created.

The design never comes before the concept, and we are the design. No creature can exist unless there are mechanisms in place to allow the subject to flourish. This is simply good. Creation is good, being taken care of is good, not to sound like a hippy but peace is good, without morality there would be no science where you invest your faith in.  Morality is a direction we're either heading or not. When we do not practice morality, we find ourselves in a self destructive state.

We did not invent the laws of self destruction, nor did we invent the laws of construction.

To have a great idea and work hard toward this goal produces. If the produce, whatever it is, is then used for immoral action, the damage will be as great as the invention itself.

 

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

This place was too fucking too to be true, but it was. Research it.

Show me any study or similar that argues this.

 

Please. It grieves me fetch research for you. How about I call up my little niece and ask her to google something for you in this day and age where information is at out fingertips, would you like that ?

Libya currently is divided between 2 forces seeking to seize all it's assets. It's been destroyed by greedy mongers invested in remaining on top. It's only been 5 years. Before then it was more than the American dream. It was The American Fantasy. If the world knew how Libya rolled, people would migrate there real quick. You were told Gaddafi was all kinds of things, but it's easy to see the place was better off with him in power for starters.

Posts: 10218
Moral relativism of evil

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Please. It grieves me fetch research for you. How about I call up my little niece and ask her to google something for you in this day and age where information is at out fingertips, would you like that ?

Posting sources is a good habit to be in. It makes your claims easier to take, plus it's both polite and convenient enough to give the words more sway. Without it it makes it easier to doubt and, following that, potentially ignore it. 

Posts: 8
Moral relativism of evil

Theory isn't even all that reliable, however in this subject, emotion is elemental. Morality in its true form is intuitive, and when this emotional  intuition is violated, there will be an emotional price to pay. Which can get pretty damn psychological. 

Still no absolutes ? What do those look like to you?

Without the emotional mechanism, there will be no care, no morality, no mercy, no collaboration, no technology, no creativity. Morality is more than a universal agreement or some cheap concept a primal version of us invented. From birth we need it, or we'll die.

Morality is not about emotion, not for everyone.

Morality, as a construct, exists to escape the claws of guilt and regret.

When neither is experienced, there is nothing to run from.

Posts: 2216
Moral relativism of evil

Turncoat stated: source post

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Please. It grieves me fetch research for you. How about I call up my little niece and ask her to google something for you in this day and age where information is at out fingertips, would you like that ?

Posting sources is a good habit to be in. It makes your claims easier to take, plus it's both polite and convenient enough to give the words more sway. Without it it makes it easier to doubt and, following that, potentially ignore it. 

 

I didn't this time. If I had to do it, there would be no site or documentary good enough. All he has to do is look into anything I've said for himself. 

Posts: 162
Moral relativism of evil

no one is evil. it's just people with different interests and we rationalize.

This site contains NSFW material. To view and use this site, you must be 18+ years of age.