Sociopath Community

We're going around in circles. You don't answer my questions fully and you don't even try to keep your arguments concise and on point.

• - You argue against moral relativism and for moral absolutism, but can't define what the latter would be like. Except that it's flexible.
• - Your idea of moral degeneracy is when it's illegal to fire a Muslim man because he refuses to shake a woman's hand (not arguing this is good), and you think this shows that our world is growing less moral overall.
• - You make it sound as if ISIS is only fighting a defensive war, and that it's only the west's fault they're 'angry'.
• - You claim Gaddafi's Libya was heaven on Earth (which is an original claim), but it grieves you to have to cough up any kind of sources to back that up.
• - I have no idea what you're trying to say about morality and hypocrisy.

I agree with what Tony is saying about Libya. Gaddafi was a good man. 

Morality is just a code of values to live and make decisions by. In that sense it is always relative because even if values are 100% the same in two people, that cannot be predicted or even proven through objective measures. It is unrealistic to expect humans, in their complexity to be absolute with anything, but I would assert that the more fixed the identity, the more fixed the morality. Sweden's cultural identity is gradually changing with the influx of refugees, but its political identity hasn't changed much. It's been about pacifism and looking out for the marginalized for a long time now. Gaddafi's benefit was his implementation of socialism. Socialism encourages a degree of uniformity capitalism does not, which in turn shapes a national system of values that is more homogeneous. Even then, morality is the result of a construct.In this case it is literally a side effect of the institution of a socialistic government. I don't see how unity would work any differently in Sweden. As of now it's more of a capitalistic welfare state than a true socialist state, and it doesn't abide by Sharia law. It can either remain as it is and continue to function fine or it can become reminiscent of Gaddafi's Libya, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

I'm just butting in and my english isn't the best, but what I think he meant to say is as follows:

Greedy individuals, whose personality is on the sociopathic spectrum, get the basic idea of the rat race indoctrinated very early. And due to pursueing corporate thinking, they will lose moral values, because basic corporate thinking is very scientific. Or rather very objective. Many decisions are felled without thinking about social/moral factors.

Edit: And the glorification of money in our society doesn't help.

I hope that you'll reply to this idea, because i found it intriguing.

of course not, he was a politician

WW3 stated: source post

^ That reads 'People would be hypocrites with absolute morality, BECAUSE, no such thing is in practice.

That's a paradox, and cannot be.

no it isnt a paradox. hypocrisy isnt absolutely right or wrong. i think you're delusional. how many times have other people called you delusional?

I already mentioned how hypocrisy isn't about right or wrong earlier in the thread.

My argument is that it's impossible for hypocrisy to take place under said condition, which is a paradox. People cannot be considered hypocritical about a practice they don't even partake in.

You can't even explain why it isn't a paradox.

Khanosaur stated: source post

It is unrealistic to expect humans, in their complexity to be absolute with anything, but I would assert that the more fixed the identity, the more fixed the morality.

Interesting point. Would you say a more fixed identity, with accompanying morality, is a desirable thing?

Khanosaur stated: source post

Sweden's cultural identity is gradually changing with the influx of refugees, but its political identity hasn't changed much.

It's a relatively large boost in population, but I don't think it's nearly large enough to significantly change culture or politics.

Khanosaur stated: source post

Socialism encourages a degree of uniformity capitalism does not, which in turn shapes a national system of values that is more homogeneous. Even then, morality is the result of a construct.

I agree.

Khanosaur stated: source post

I don't see how unity would work any differently in Sweden. As of now it's more of a capitalistic welfare state than a true socialist state, and it doesn't abide by Sharia law. It can either remain as it is and continue to function fine or it can become reminiscent of Gaddafi's Libya, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Reminiscent how? Sharia law will never be implemented in Sweden. 

Inquirer stated: source post

 

We're going around in circles. You don't answer my questions fully and you don't even try to keep your arguments concise and on point.

According to what we posted, I answered all of your questions in full.

• - You argue against moral relativism and for moral absolutism, but can't define what the latter would be like. Except that it's flexible.

I didn't only say 'morality' is flexible, but on that note it has to be. To demand perfection from a human being in itself is dark, and would conflict with what is moral.

Moral absolutism is what you brought up. Your words..

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

^ That reads 'People would be hypocrites with absolute morality, BECAUSE, no such thing is in practice.

That's a paradox, and cannot be.

• - Your idea of moral degeneracy is when it's illegal to fire a Muslim man because he refuses to shake a woman's hand (not arguing this is good), and you think this shows that our world is growing less moral overall.

That was just an example of what happened in Sweden. If you look into it, you'll find that Sweden is getting worse, as is the rest of the world.

• - You make it sound as if ISIS is only fighting a defensive war, and that it's only the west's fault they're 'angry'.

Just because I never sugar coated it like your old media and thought controllers, doesn't mean you should blame the messenger for how ugly it may sound to you. 

Why should you or I believe within this whole declaration of war, that ISIS struck first, and has done more damage than trillion of dollars worth of militarized weapons over these decades.

It either makes sense or it doesn't.

• - You claim Gaddafi's Libya was heaven on Earth (which is an original claim), but it grieves you to have to cough up any kind of sources to back that up.

I made no such, as you say, "original claim" that Gaddafi's Libya was heaven on Earth.

My claim was that it's beyond the American dream, and more like the American fantasy. Notice how you make things up such as stating "that claim" as an original claim made by me.

• - I have no idea what you're trying to say about morality and hypocrisy.

 

Your words again.

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

You're the one that brought it up, and it never made sense to begin with. I'm not even trying to say anything about morality and hypocrisy other than letting you know, how in that case absolute morality cannot be instrumental in hypocrisy, cause if they were "actually practicing absolute morality, they would be telling the truth if they said they were practicing it. If they however weren't truly practicing it, then what does that tell you, then they really aren't practicing it now are they ?

The word that needs to be edited in your sentence, is the word "with", because the 2nd half contradicts the first half.

When atheists argue morality it's always hilarious.  

Morality is the law of the creator. There really shouldn't be any categorizing it into a conflicting true and false version.

Everyone has opinions but nobody really knows what they are talking about lmao

^ That reads 'People would be hypocrites with absolute morality, BECAUSE, no such thing is in practice.

That's a paradox, and cannot be.

no it isnt a paradox. hypocrisy isnt absolutely right or wrong. i think you're delusional. how many times have other people called you delusional?