Sociopath Community

Inquirer stated: source post

 

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.

The political identity of a country can be an identity of change. That was originally the political identity of The U.S, for example. In its case, the changing of identity is what ironically carries with it a strong aversion to change (for some).

 

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.

No, not necessarily. To clarify, their socialism was combined with Sharia law, creating a special national brand of ethics.

moonshine stated: source post

 

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.

 

 

 

moonshine stated: source post

 

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.

 

Well said. 

Morality appears to be based on an emotional reaction to X Y or Z.

Whereas ethics are based on choice of action. They can be inconsistent as a result of choice, but their basis can be  agreed upon. 

moonshine stated: source post

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

 

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

 

You’re confusing morality with ethics. 

False. Guilt is real, and it's never triggered by cause for calamity. Emotion, like the human body we call us, is not a human invention. What we call morality, is comprised of common sense.   

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

Nonsense. If all it were a superstition, there would be no real reason for a Mother to care for her infant. Our very upbringing would be based on delusions of neediness, while quite clearly our needs awaited us prior to being born. To be raised with a lack of morality traumatizes those individuals, and we see things like mood disorders and other deadly mental health issues that quite often drive one to suicide.  All things physical will be short lived. This is all temporary, regardless if it's eternal or finite, this will remain the same, no matter what the opinions of mediocre minds are. 

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

You assume, as you say "the product of sense", is statically rational. Then what do you make of bad ethics ?

Ethics are separate measures of good and bad. Not the foundation of rationality. Rationality is moral, while irrationality is immoral.

 

   "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.

Extraterrestrials....

The biggest threat to human beings as far as your vision goes, are immoral human beings. To you being kicked in the balls is neither moral or immoral, even if your balls stopped working, it's all one big illusion.

  

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.

 

Not just any other humans are a threat, which is a fact. But immoral humans are a threat.

The civilization that permits others to flourish, does so on a moral basis. To be sabotaged from those who only intended malice, is to be wronged.  Counter productivity will absolutely never be rational, and rationality is synonymous with morality. To move forward, to create, to expand, to advance. This is rational. If Morality were obsolete it wouldn't just hinder our progress, it would reverse it and we'll drop like dead flies.

At my age and experience, to see someone throw around the dictionary, and quote other languages they probably don't understand while pitching uneducated outlooks with two cent remarks, followed by a sock puppet for the sake of public mental masturbation....... Why do you force me to claim supremacy over you in many ways ?

None of those definitions go against my word. And that's all page 1 information on the subject. This is an advanced discussion. You're behind, and petty too so you'll have to be muted, I no longer have patience for low quality interactions like 1st grade name calling and dunce people.

False. Guilt is real...ect

So...what you are really attempting to convey, is that homosexuality is immoral and your guilt is killing you for indulging.

ethics

1. moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.
"medical ethics also enter into the question"
synonyms:    moral code, morals, morality, moral stand, moral principles, moral values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, creed, credo, ethos, rules of conduct, standards (of behaviour), virtues, dictates of conscience
"the ethics of journalism"
2. the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
"neither metaphysics nor ethics is the home of religion"

morality

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"
2. synonyms:    ethics, rights and wrongs, correctness, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"
3. the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

So....in essence, morality is  expressed in the form of choices and actions which are chosen governing principles that allow for defining how the distinction is delineated between good and bad. 

What name calling? Are you reading things into words that are not there? Bravo. Another blind as a bat misaligned intent reader. 

You remain daft as usual to cover your blunders and then throw a smoke screen of "affront" to slide under and pretend you have some higher ground from which to to further blow sunshine up your own ass. 

Haha, okay - i checked out the beginning and the middle of this thread now.

I think i'm with Leon14 on it,  by-and-large.

leon14 stated: source post

Well I dont sip Pimms while listening to classical music and contemplating my greatness...

That happens with me occasionally.      

Inquirer stated: source post

I'll list my points:

Define the American dream and show how Libya fulfilled it.

I did define the American dream when I said how it offers opportunity for success and wealth. I also showed how Libya did not fulfill it, but they surpassed it due to their standards of living. It's not up to me to confirm anything for you buy fetching you multiple sources of information, but at the least I've done what you're asking in advance.

Absolute morality cannot stay absolute in practice, so it is just as vulnerable to hypocrisy as any other form of morality. Explain why this is not so.

3rd time's a charm.

If it doesn't stay absolute, then it wasn't absolute to begin with. You keep contradicting yourself when you don't even believe in the existence of absolute morality, yet to you it's possible for someone to be a hypocrite over it. Paradox.

In the invented scene of someone claiming to be absolutely moral, their hypocrisy would be comprised of falsehood, and not a genuine example of absolute morality.

You claim morality is receding. Support this with better arguments (only good one so far is that wars get progressively more lethal).

You'll always want more. The problem I have with that, is that it's a basic chore you should be capable of doing yourself.

We're entertained by immorality. Our entertainment gives the older generations the chills, because we've become more callous toward things we wouldn't wish upon ourselves or anyone for that matter. Men and women don't even love one another like they used to. Our environment reflects our behavior, and to talk to many people in public will make you social awkward. The list or things that don't seem to matter to you, goes on and on. This doesn't mean there's no morality.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

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.

We've been through this. It's still a theory, yes, but it's the best one we have. Bacteria growing teeth isn't laughable.

I'm not claiming there isn't a creator (that I can't prove) but I am claiming it's more logical to not assume that a creator's needed.

 

Logic doesn't entail correctness and everyone has various degrees of outlooks.

Creation will never happen without a creator. Not by us, and not by the great nothing you find logical, that accidentally managed all of this. We and all temporary physical things and creatures are clearly ingeniously designed and made.

We already know, how It would require us to be yeeeeears ahead of ourselves and ultra advanced before we can "borrow" materials like we do, to even start to make the simplest lifeforms ourselves. 

Good.  You just dig yourself  further into conflating morals with ethics without having a faintest clue of the nature of either.    And  now dropping biology too into the confusion. 

‘Ethics’ are  constant;   abstract objects, like mathematical entities / sets / functions  -  “as mind-independent, non-spatio-temporal, causally effete, abstract entities.”   Ethics are  abstract construct. Absolute, objective, constant.

‘Morals’, on the other hand, don’t exist outside the vehicle of human condition.  Morals are a human construct - arbitrary, subjective, fallacious.

Ethics can be contradictory of morals (depending on the given societal consensus on  morals) - same as justice vs. law, etc.  etc.

But i thought i explained all that in my previous post.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

To you being kicked in the balls is neither moral or immoral, even if your balls stopped working, it's all one big illusion.

I’ve no balls.  Try pussy next time?

 Spatial Mind stated: source post  

Then what do you make of bad ethics ?

No such thing.  See above.  

     Spatial Mind stated: source post 

     "The biggest threat to human beings as far as your vision goes, are immoral human beings."

^

Why are you putting words of your own into my mouth?     

Didn’t i say morality is arbitrary, subjective, ephemeral and irrational?  I did.  Your morality is the next fellow’s immorality & vica versa.  

          Spatial Mind stated: source post 

         " Counter productivity will absolutely never be rational, and rationality is synonymous with morality. To move forward, to create, to expand, to advance. This is rational."

^

Meanwhile on Earth, in real life,  the agenda of counter-evolutionary counter-productive destructive irrationality is pushed  by the moralist compassion-industry,  chanting the demented madness-mantra of “moral duty  /  shared values / moralduty sharedvalues” yada yada.    If you persist asking them the WHY question, their answer invariably reduces to “butbutbut…  hooman”   <  see my prev. post regarding taboo, idolatry, sacred cow = superstition.  

(Yes,  i’m using the current mass-migration to illustrate the point, for simplicity's sake.  In case if it wasn’t apparent.)   Do you live on Planet Zorg? 

        Spatial Mind stated: source post 

        "If Morality were obsolete it wouldn't just hinder our progress, it would reverse it and we'll drop like dead flies."

^

But that’s precisely what’s happening.  ‘Morality’ hindering progress,  towards the point of no return.  People dropping like dead flies, etc.

           Spatial Mind stated: source post 

           "At my age and experience"

^

Enjoy  your youth while you have it.  Climb trees or whatever.  One day you’ll hit 18, 20 & so on - there’ll be a time for grown-up stuff like this later, no need to rush.   

Primal is not my sock, btw.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

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.

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.  

I'll list my points:

Define the American dream and show how Libya fulfilled it.

Absolute morality cannot stay absolute in practice, so it is just as vulnerable to hypocrisy as any other form of morality. Explain why this is not so.

You claim morality is receding. Support this with better arguments (only good one so far is that wars get progressively more lethal).

Spatial Mind stated: source post

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.

We've been through this. It's still a theory, yes, but it's the best one we have. Bacteria growing teeth isn't laughable.

I'm not claiming there isn't a creator (that I can't prove) but I am claiming it's more logical to not assume that a creator's needed.