Writings

>>Having empathy

You're right, I'm such a faggot.

Sociopath making excuses for himself

>Empathy

You obviously didn't read the whole OP post.

Fatalism is just weakness and immorality on the part of assholes who don't want to be blamed for anything or feel bad about themselves; they extend their narcissism to love of evil people because they, themselves, are inwardly evil and want to believe that (like these poor pitiable evil people) they do what they do not of freewill but by fatality.

this whole post is just projection.

Address the argument or GTFO

I did address the argument. You're just making up your own explanation of what is going through the OP's head and I could also say you're just using a straw man, because the whole post is just your assumption, your own idea of what someone else must be thinking. It's not based on evidence of what the OP is actually thinking though, because you can't know that.

Not the guy who wrote the post, just annoyed by the ad hominem

This is probably one of the dumbest threads I have ever seen.

In 100 years, in the age of enlightened transhuman civilization, where organize humans are a dying breed, people will look back on the OP's post and wonder why farseeing thoughts like those were so rare (and probably come to a conclusion quickly, because of exponentially higher intelligence).

Why do you assume that? I think you are the one projecting your own projective mindset onto me here, bitch.

You're probably right and I feel ashamed to post in it.

>organize
organic*

>do you want to be murdered

yes actually

>if people are victimized they deserve respect

Now THIS is fedora!

If a person is governed by their biology, and they don't feel that thinking murderers are bad is wrong, doesn't that mean that they lack the ability to feel that thinking murderers are bad is wrong is wrong?

Why did you even write this shit? You're a pseud

lol what the fuck?

bump

The golden rule can be viewed as the product of current society. What constitutes these rules are what keeps the society relatively stable. Humans being social creatures, the necessity to adhere to and propagate these rules is rooted within us via evolution, with the exception of sociopaths. To live "in accordance with our nature", it becomes necessary to value these rules because it keeps the machine that is ourselves and society well-oiled and functioning to the state in which we are currently at. This makes adherence to this side objectively more important than any other.

it always amazes me that there are people this stupid

Following your logic, it could simply be argued that the determination of punishment comes from following biology as well, and your point becomes moot. The greater governance to biology (i.e. everyone else who isn't a sociopath) dominates the lesser of the person in question.

People automatically give 100% of their respect to the rape victim, but they never understand that the rapist is a person all the same. Then you get people saying stuff like they deserve punishment. For what? They're just animals, acting out their biology, human beings are only factors of their genetics and their social conditioning and their patterns of behavior governed by brainwaves.

The idea of punishment is stupid. To say "I'm going to hurt you because you hurt someone else" is a very school yard and childish way to be. I think that it's sad that society has no other choice to control people than to punish and lock up people who do bad things. It's sort of a consequence of a bunch of people with different behavioral patterns all having to be bunched up together in such a small area. I don't think that humans ever evolved for us to get to this sort of capacity that we are right now, we started off in small tribes.

That's why I say that I think it sucks that the people who are punished by law are even punished in the first place, because what does punishing them actually do? It just gives people some shallow sense of justice, when really the universe itself is an indifferent place, we all came from the dust of exploded stars that conglomerated into something we call human beings. That is why the rapist is no better or worse than the rape victim.

*tips*

the fedora is a blessing... and a curse... perpetuating a culture of victimhood

i guess you've never been to /b/

the act of punishment insures that society holds together. seriously how do you not get that? sure you can go ahead and blame a person's actions on his biology and take any idea of free will out of the picture, but you also have to apply that view to the whole of humanity as well, we punish because we are following our biology.

We punish because we have no choice and it's tragic. We actually do have a choice whether or not we punish people instead or rehabilitate people as a matter of fact, though. We just choose the stupid school yard bully way.

i guess the term punishment is vague for a discussion like this. I meant that there should be a moral code instilled in the society and forced by authority. In terms of rehab, i would be interested in seeing it getting implemented for certain people. But how does one rehabilitate a mass murderer? What happens to the people who just wont rehabilitate? There needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

and certainly you agree that in some cases it is in the society's best interest to keep a dangerous individual isolated and maintained, right? You would just argue that the individual should have a comfortable living situation and not a cold prison?

Yes, I think that as a human being they should have a right to a happy life, and certainly if they must be held in prisons they should be comfortable.

Well, that's why it's sad that we live in a society like this, because human beings probably were never evolved to live in this over populated society that we live in today, we were hunter gatherers.

>There is no ultimate right or wrong
What's "wrong" with being "asinine and arrogant", then?

There's no ultimate right or wrong, so you should be humble. To say that you're more right than someone else is arrogance, which is stupid. I'm not saying that it plays into what I just said as a contradiction, I'm saying that since there's no ultimate right or wrong we should use that to better ourselves, for the betterment of species. The whole post has emotional and moral aspects tied into it, you just have to work them out.

could you define what it means to be ultimately right or ultimately wrong? What would it take for you to say that such things do exist? I just want to understand your thought process a bit more clearly before continuing.

that would mean, something that is absolutely wrong no matter what. there is no such thing, because right and wrong are simply human concepts that don't exist outside of our specific biases and prejudices.

You also feel sorry for children's rapists?

>accept everyone!
>so that's why i respect one group more than the other

Bad writings.

so many spooks in this thread

>There's no ultimate right or wrong, so you should be humble
>no right
>or wrong
>should
You should eat a cock, retard.

I just did. It was fine-quality poultry if I say so myself.

OK, good for you, man. Have a nice day! :))))))

In some ways I agree with you - it's certainly true that people's sympathy for victims and their hate for "evil" people are both insincere and motivated by what's socially acceptable. And my philosophy is one of forgiveness, so I tend to try to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone equally. But what you have to understand is that those "noble" exiles whom you defend would do the same things to you that they did to their victims in a heartbeat. To a sociopath, forgiveness is only valuable as a way to avoid their own punishment. If you still want to offer it, great but just know that what you're helping is more machine than human.

This is just a word to the wise that was brought on by reading the first paragraph, I don't care about all the rest of the speculative realism that's attached to it.

You're missing the point. It's not that I'm not allowed to have innate biases, but the biases that I have go against whatever the majority bias is, proving that there's no ultimate grounds for what makes these biases in the first place, proving the point that there is no ultimate right or wrong. That point does not negate my own personal biases, but in the end I would say that the rapist is no better or worse than the rape victim, I personally just feel a sense of injustice for the rapist because he or she isn't respected and appreciated for the complexity of their human nature and behavior, all of human nature can be looked as a natural study. I'm not arguing to reject rationality, quite the opposite. I'm trying to use rationality to reject the irrational, and I have my own emotions and I'm not a machine, so surely you must respect that, because if you didn't you would be deluding yourself.

When you get wronged by someone for no reason OP, your tune will change very quickly.

>proving that there's no ultimate grounds for what makes these biases in the first place

your counter-bias does more to affirm these 'ultimate grounds' rather than negate them. you arrive at your conclusions not by rational argument but using the established grounds as a given that are to be negotiated with rather than proven false

>I'm trying to use rationality to reject the irrational

you mean reject the complexity of human nature

If anything, it would make me feel sadder about the planet I live on, or simply give me brain damage from the shock and fright. It may make me hate the person, because of course human beings are prone to emotions and I'm no exception, but it won't be out of moments of lucidity and revelation, it will be because of emotions clouding my judgment.
This is nonsense. You're twisting around what I say. I didn't affirm any ultimate grounds, I said that humans are subject to bias and prejudice, now you're pissing me off, you're either trolling or stupid. I didn't say anything contradictory, you just don't get it.

Time for everyone to get on the ol Foucault Discipline and Punish

>religious people
>glorified to an unfair degree

It's unfortunate you have such a firm position on religious people who you regard as inferior (what happened to your misplaced empathy and lack of judgement?) despite your rather poor knowledge of what religious people actually believe. Since you seem to be primarily attacking the Christians (apparently representative of all religious people now?) by your criticism of the concept of faith, I'll just answer that.

Faith in the Christian tradition doesn't mean "hurr just believe without evidence, you can't prove god." In fact, this view is considered a heresy in the Catholic Church called "fideism."

Faith means not just to 'believe' but also to have confidence. It is a state of trust in God and his promises. A Christian would have faith in God after establishing certain premises about God's nature - even though he cannot know God's will, he trusts that God will act benevolently. He has confidence that he should continue to practice Christianity. A person with no confidence in his belief or unbelief is unlikely to act on it.

An imperfect comparison would be someone boarding a plane. There is a slim chance that it might crash, but they have faith, they are confident, that the plane will reach its destination based on what they know about the training of pilots, aircraft procedures and the statistics of plane crashes.

Here's a video relevant to your discussion about "False Compassion" by a Catholic bishop. I hope that you will watch it if you have an open mind, OP.

youtube.com/watch?v=Sog1oZtt-Q4

>I didn't affirm any ultimate grounds

you do. by adopting the position opposed to established grounds you are legitimising it, because your position wouldn't exist without it. you're not actually demonstrating how there are no grounds for morals if you are using established grounds for morals in order to justify your own grounds for morals.

>I didn't say anything contradictory, you just don't get it.

no you're just a poor thinker. you're so excited about the novelty of some profound thought (literally being edgy) you rush to write it down instead of taking the time to think through it and develop it to its logical conclusion(s).

>I said that humans are subject to bias and prejudice

that doesn't mean what you say is true, especially when what you do undermines what you say.

I live in an American country, therefor the religious group I find myself most annoyed with is Christians. I would relegate that same measure to any other religious group, like Islam, which is equally abhorrent, and they all share the same rejection of evidence, basing their ideas on faith; one of the stupidest illnesses of mankind.

I don't give a fuck about your definition of religion. Let me sum up your religion for you: It's fake and you're a retard. It's prepackaged wisdom vulnerable to the folly of any other man in it's ideas and interpretation, it's fucking stupid. Kill you and kill your religion, you worthless fucking moron, I am sick of people like you on this planet.

Haha oh wow. I wasn't expecting this.

Funny how your image talks about "evidence" but you'll persist in your misinformed understanding about religion and hate it based on false assumptions.

Sad!

>no you're just a poor thinker. you're so excited about the novelty of some profound thought (literally being edgy) you rush to write it down instead of taking the time to think through it and develop it to its logical conclusion(s).
I've been developing this thought for months after I formed some thoughts on the Brock Turner case approximately a month ago. Enough of your stupid, baseless fucking assumptions.

i can't even imagine what it's like to be this stupid

I'm informed about religion alright, that's why I'm a fucking atheist.

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

i've been posting the basis of my conclusion though so it's not really baseless, even if you conveniently omit any reference to it

You're flip flopping as much as a politician. You said that I form my thoughts because I became excited on a moments notice, which is tacitly fucking false, you apparently have an inability to think coherently though.

Your words are misplaced, if you really believed that you wouldn't believe in the "wise words" of your faith. I trust demonstrable evidence, because I don't believe I can trust myself, and I can see through the fallacies of other men. I trust logic and reason, but I don't see myself as an incredibly wise individual. I know that I am a rational minded individual, for better or for worse, because I only trust reason and logic, it's the foundation of reliable tools.

Thoughts like OPs are quite common among teenagers

it doesn't matter if it's false. i still gave basis

i'm right about you being a poor thinker though. it probably would have been better if you just went with excitement rather than admitting you spent months constructing something it took others minutes to recognise the faults.

sure i'm the one who can't think coherently

You keep using platitudes copy-pasted into your head from atheist memes but I don't see any evidence of your so-called rationality. Your vicious response to my rather polite post was incredibly irrational and hilariously emotive. Not to mention you said you lived in "an American country"? Typing THAT fast and angrily, user?

It's fine if you are an atheist and dislike religion user, but you need to back up your opinions with arguments if we're going to have a discussion. Instead you lash out without addressing any of my points and tell me to go kill myself?

And when does a person cease to become a teenager and become a truly wise individual? When he has thoughts that are so rooted in common ground between other individuals that he ceases to attempt independent thought, and takes comfort in the affirmation of others? If my thoughts were truly that of a young person, you would only be saying that as if you have some sort of prejudice against young people. That's really what this is about though, is attacking the character of the person you're arguing against instead of grappling with the philosophy, which you utterly fucking fail in doing.

i love how young people think they know everything

I apologize for telling you to kill yourself, I am not that hateful of a person and I don't condone suicide. It was disgraceful to you and myself, it had nothing to do with my argument. I am just pissed off at always dealing with religious people, you have to realize that being an atheist makes you surrounded by a lot of religiosity and religious people, it becomes very nauseating, and I mean that in quite a literal sense of the word.

He's obviously Puerto Rican

Not providing a basis for your argument, just slinging vague insults. I get it, this is like a game of charades, I'm supposed to just guess what you're talking about. Oh, sorry, looks like I can't figure it out, you're going to have to tell me. We should play a different game, I'm getting tired of yours, or better yet, not play a game and have a real discussion.

I wonder, as an Australian I grew up in an almost completely secular environment and find myself surrounded by a complete lack of religion in anything. If you ever find the time and are feeling in the mood and not nauseated you should watch the video I posted.

actually that makes sense im a dummy

There is little if anything to grasp about your philosophy. By your own reasoning, religious people can't help being religious, society at large can't help glorifying them, people can't help but feel sympathy for rape victims and disgust towards rapists. If you're gonna try to espouse biological determinism at least go all the way with it.

The problem is I'm not entirely indifferent to the world around me, and I'm not sure how I could function as a human being and also be completely different to the world around me, whether by ignoring it or taking part in it.

For someone who bloviates about knowledge and logic, you seem more preoccupied with your emotions.

Maybe instead of feeling, you should try thinking for once, you big faggot baby.

>different
indifferent*
edit

>big faggot baby

You can't, really, but it's pretty silly to go on this long screed about how we can't help anything we do, as if that were something profound. And anyway, what good are logic and reason if all of our thoughts and actions are inevitable? Why champion reason over faith? You're just putting a different name on the same indifferent chain of events.

>Not providing a basis for your argument

i did though. you just stopped responding to it

Because reason leads to a cool understanding of the world around, vigilant and observing, it's not just a frame of reference, it's a state of mind. The fear based center of the brain controls those who are afraid of things that are threatening, it controls the rational part of the brain. This isn't a spiritual argument, it's an argument over feelings, it's an argument over how we view the universe; which is why spirituality and feelings are delusional. To understand not only how you came to your conclusion, but to understand that you should open your mind to the world around you, a truly intellectual and insightful individual looks past the horror, has that sense of cool observation and rational.

The indifferent chain of events is the frame of reference, the way you see it determines your view of it. It's subjective, ultimately. I'll go back to a point I made over 4 years ago now, to the baseball stadium example. 10,000 people in a baseball stadium see a home run being hit, they all have their own unique, individual story. This relativism is the key problem that I have with human beings, we all see things through our own lens, rationality comes after this and sometimes in lieu of rationality. Human beings with their subjective morality, their imperfect small brains, their obsessive self absorption, negate every aspect of rationality, unless they choose to obey rationality; the only reliable tool of our pattern seeking minds.

So, it's not a matter of whether you think I'm silly, or whether or not you think I'm embarrassing, because in my world view, I imagine a world where people simply accept one another for who they are, which I reflected in my OP. I was imagining myself yesterday in a world without the prejudices we have, it was a beautiful place. A place where everyone is okay with one another, where there's no hatred or bias towards any group of people, none what so ever. That is my ideal world, that is the world that I reflect when I make the arguments that I write. It's the heart of it all, exposed to you user. Go ahead and rip it out.

Like that other guy pointed out, your OP pic is not rational and based mostly on feelings. A desire for a perfectly, universally accepting brotherhood of man is a kind of spirituality in its own right.

You are also a human being, and you view the world through your own subjective lens, right? What makes you think your rationality is anything but that lens? How can we choose to obey rationality if we have no choice? How do you know rationality is reliable? Aristotle's logic is rigorous, but he reached some conclusions which are plainly incorrect, given what we know about the universe now.

Also, humans have small brains relative to what, exactly?

>Also, humans have small brains relative to what, exactly?
Our brains are small relative to what we're capable (or incapable) to achieve, because of our lack of capacity to think clearly and objectively. At the very best we as humans can acknowledge this shortcoming.

It is not possible to think objectively about anything

do you agree that, within the scope of the morality of human beings, that there are absolute right and wrongs? Is raping a child absolutely wrong relative to humanity and nothing outside of it?

This is a pedantic argument and yes, I will come to the same conclusion whether or not I give you a scenario where raping a child is right and wrong, but your whole argument is facile. A gun is pointed towards your head, and the person says "here rape this child" and you go ahead and rape the child. There, there's your example where raping a child isn't always wrong, I tore open your one equivocal question.

I don't understand how that makes the action not wrong? Being forced to do a wrong action doesn't change it to a right one. The wrong is still present, and rather the only thing that changes is who is accountable for it. In this case, it would be the man with the gun.

two wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes

The conditions existed to make the man do whatever he did, the womb, the air he breathes, the genes passed down to his body, what he drank in the morning, the state of affairs in accordance to himself and the world around him, all of these things, down to the smallest detail can be accounted for if he had tools large enough to measure it. Every single action could be traced back to a source, every single thing a person does. So, what's to say that man shouldn't rape that baby? Well, we say that, our justice system says that, but ultimately it's arbitrary, it came down to different factors that controlled him, justice and morality can't control everything and it's an extremely imperfect system. Since it's so imperfect, we practically lash out at the universe when it doesn't go our way, we see this as sort of an intrusion onto our sacred ground, when people break these codes we set up. So, the person is given the name of evil, but evil isn't a person, evil isn't a character which we can assign to an entire complex array of people, it simply is a moot concept.

waiting for a reply to that last comment.

I agree with you on determinism. But i guess where we differ is the value we place on the moral system in a society. There will always be deviations from the mean, ie sociopaths, but in no way does that diminish the value of the inherent morality in the average human. You seem to argue that it's not fair that a man be punished for an action because the dominant group deems it as wrong. I agree that it may not be fair, but it is absolutely necessary. Two teams are playing basketball, one of the players fouls a player of the other team by tripping over his shoelaces and runs into him. Regardless of his intentions, a whistle is blown and the appropriate actions are taken to mediate the foul. The rules of the game are set in place so the game progresses in a orderly and governed manner.

Not everyone who "fouls" or hurts other people is a sociopath, I think you're throwing around that definition pretty loosely. I don't think that the majority of people who commit crimes are even sociopaths, I believe I read that somewhere. It's sort of different from what we're talking about, but use of mental diagnosis so loosely like that sort of irks me. People in general need to stop acting like they have a degree in psychology.

You just said it yourself, the game is unfair. So we need to stop looking at life as a game and look at it as life. Do you not see the point I was trying to make in the OP? The sympathy and where it comes from?

I didn't say that all people who foul are sociopaths, i dont know how you got that from what i said. But i say a sociopath is someone who fouls unintentionally. To use your own thinking, such a person would not realize his actions were condemned because he doesn't subjectively feel that they are bad, would you agree? I was trying to give the analogy of a player who fouls without intending to as an example of a sociopath. But you can substitute that for a man who isn't a sociopath just as well, and my statement doesn't lose value.

As far as I've noticed you've said nothing about where this sympathy is supposed to come from