Sociopath Community

AnimalBrain stated: source post

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.

The dark side of celebrating individualism is that people tend to center their attention on themselves and how they feel, and not as much on how other people fare. You don't need sociopathy to get egoism and callousness.

I agree this is a problem seen from a moral standpoint, but I don't think it's a new problem (not caused by contemporary corporate thinking etc.) and I don't think absolute morality would be a good countermeasure.

People have a habit of focusing on what's bad and consequently miss what's good. This is why there are so many preaching doom and gloom. The end is not nigh. 

shh don't disturb the bait, you're gonna scare the fish

"You claim so many things and you never back them up."

You're drifting away from the original topic of discussion with more false assumptions.

If you open up, you'll find everything I told you here has merit. Paris striking Isis first is correct, I taught you that.

How morality was necessary all the way back to the first human beings and all species in general, morality is not a human invention, it's common sense.

Gaddafi's Libya was too good to be true by western definitions of a great nation. He was a threat to the world financial system due to the level of resources and independence, Libya's fall is a convenience to the USD, and NATO took part in killing Gaddafi. 

"And no, saying that the golden ratio is 'too perfect' to not be proof of intelligent design is a bad argument. Please refrain from throwing these my way."

How long has it been since we've had that discussion ? 2 years now.

You believe all of this existence came out of nothing. That it was an absolute unconsciousness that designed the socket for your eye to rest in, let alone connect the functionality of the eye to light, because one of the 2 exists.

That it was nothing that designed your hands.... Meanwhile your hands have a purpose, and a reason for being as they are.

You are convinced that an unconscious force designed all creatures, in which we who are conscious are inspired by, and have yet to make anything as sophisticated.

Charles Darwin, was a theist, and it's his theories "you have faith" in. They still never found the missing link, and they never will.

Inquirer stated: source post

 

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?

I think it depends on what a society is aiming to achieve. It's potentially the more utilitarian approach, but I'm not sure I believe in a permanently fixed identity. On a large scale this could pose an issue because the slightest alteration could cause a tidal wave, as opposed to a society that was in the gray to begin with.

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.

I don't see the admitting of refugees as a contradiction to Swedish 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. 

Not Sharia law, no. But the socialism could always become more pronounced.

Khanosaur stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

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

I think it depends on what a society is aiming to achieve. It's potentially the more utilitarian approach, but I'm not sure I believe in a permanently fixed identity. On a large scale this could pose an issue because the slightest alteration could cause a tidal wave, as opposed to a society that was in the gray to begin with.

Moderation is often the best way to go. The difficulty lies in deciding how much is too much.

Khanosaur stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

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

I don't see the admitting of refugees as a contradiction to Swedish politics.

It is not. I thought you meant that the influx of refugees with a different political identity could potentially change the political identity of the country, to which I said there were too few of them.

Khanosaur stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

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

Not Sharia law, no. But the socialism could always become more pronounced.

Was Libya's socialism more pronounced?

I don't think Sweden will return to a more pronounced socialism since it goes against free market ideas.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

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

It's impossible to advance debates that include you because of your apparent dislike for fact-based argumentation and your apparent penchant for 'fluid' arguments. To get somewhere we need to be able to define common ground.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

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

The topic was moral absolutism vs moral relativism when you decided to join in.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

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.

If I look into it? Getting worse how?

This was your argument, thus it's your responsibility to present it in a way that makes it viable for discussion. This is a good example of why you're hard to debate.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

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.

What the US and Nato has done is irrelevant. ISIS does not, and never has, acted according to international laws and conventions. It was 'illegal' from the moment it was created.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

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 think it was an original claim. It's an opinion.

Prove this. Define the American dream and let's compare it to Libya.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

You're the one that brought it up, and it never made sense to begin with.

I said absolute morality cannot stay absolute in practice, so it is just as vulnerable to hypocrisy as any other form of morality.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

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.

You claim so many things and you never back them up. And no, saying that the golden ratio is 'too perfect' to not be proof of intelligent design is a bad argument. Please refrain from throwing these my way.

JimSavage stated: source post

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

We just lack the precision to convey what we really mean, I think. It's easy to throw around words that sort of mean the right thing. 

Inquirer stated: source post

You just reiterate previous points over and over, while ignoring mine.

Untrue. I brought up my points a second time, and stated how you've learned from it, because you said I don't back my claims. I don't ignore your points either, I just never adopted them.

 

I just explained why it doesn't matter if 'Paris struck first' or not, that "common sense" is not a good argument and that "western standards" is not a good definition of the American dream (which I asked you to define).

You say it doesn't matter because you learned it from me. Your words > "Paris struck first how? By declaring war on ISIS?"

Common sense is a good argument. We learn, if not the easy way the hard way will make sure we learn.

I never said western standards is the definition of the American dream.  

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Charles Darwin, was a theist, and it's his theories "you have faith" in. They still never found the missing link, and they never will.

I have faith in what makes most sense, and I'll change my beliefs if confronted with a superior theory. Since your arguments only consist of "common sense" and arbitrary notions of what's "sophisticated" I'll stick to Darwin's ideas. Him being a theist is irrelevant to the accuracy of his theory.

 

Theory is unproven you know. A bacteria growing teeth just because it needed it is laughable. Darwin's theory and the man himself never said there's no consciousness behind creation either.

They are still trying to figure out what might have caused the big bang too. But whatever it is, it must have been eternal, and very much animate.

Wiser to be agnostic than atheist.   

Spatial Mind stated: source post

 

 morality is not a human invention, it's common sense.

 

You’re confusing morality with ethics. 

Morality is a human construct, therefore inherently  fallible.   It is based on  arbitrary, irrational, ephemeral, subjective premises = a superstition.  

Ethics are objective and constant.  The product of sense = rationality.  

   "How morality was necessary all the way back to the first human beings"

Which leads us to that sacred cow of bigoted superstitious idolatry = the cult of “humanitarianism”.   Which often parades in the guise of 'morality'. 

Lest you haven’t noticed,  the human species faces no external existential threat ever since the late palæolithicum or so.   Forces of nature are reined in by-and-large, no extraterrestrial menace in sight either.   

Humans’ only existential threat comes from other humans (“L’enfer - c’est les autres”, and all that.)  A brief glance through the history of human civilisation should be enough to show you what a laughably degenerate idea “humanitarianism” is.    It's a long-obsolete, retrograde, malignant dogma.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Paris striking Isis first is correct, I taught you that.

...morality is not a human invention, it's common sense.

Gaddafi's Libya was too good to be true by western definitions of a great nation.

You just reiterate previous points over and over, while ignoring mine. I just explained why it doesn't matter if 'Paris struck first' or not, that "common sense" is not a good argument and that "western standards" is not a good definition of the American dream (which I asked you to define).

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Charles Darwin, was a theist, and it's his theories "you have faith" in. They still never found the missing link, and they never will.

I have faith in what makes most sense, and I'll change my beliefs if confronted with a superior theory. Since your arguments only consist of "common sense" and arbitrary notions of what's "sophisticated" I'll stick to Darwin's ideas. Him being a theist is irrelevant to the accuracy of his theory.