THE DOGMA OF HUMAN NATURE

...

Other urls found in this thread:

usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/10/19/cdc-sexually-transmitted-disease-rates-rising/92411446/
youtube.com/watch?v=39_2DtpnPus
youtube.com/watch?v=ki1pH9bzW9M
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

bump

bump

bump

bump

trash

enjoy your bump fucko, no one else is gonna respond to this shit

lol yeah okay

bump

>its totally cool to run around having permiscuous sex with everyone and everything you can get your dick into because it's natural.

>When someone does something bad to you and you feel natural urges to do harm to them, you refrain, because otherwise civilization would descend into barbarism, you goof.

Why is it okay to obey one systemically dangerous urge but not the other?

That's not what I said.

bump

bump

You know he was a rapist and abuser right? His sexual freedom came at the cost of others. Not what I would call a hero.

sage because this is entry-level edge

>You know he was a rapist and abuser right?
who?

And how is this entry level garbage? Are you saying that you're far past my ideas? Or are you saying you disagree with me so therefor my ideas are garbage?

Trump

The AIDs epidemic is God's answer to your post. Personally, as a bit of a sexual deviant myself (I'm on Veeky Forums) I can't ever say that giving into my urges has made me happy in the long run (hedonistic sex and relentless fapping).

It really doesn't matter if it's made you happy. What matters is not judging others because it's pointless. I don't know why everyone insists on not taking away the actual message which I clearly wrote. You just decide to assume the conclusion out of laziness and not reading the whole thing.

>What matters is not judging others, because it's pointless.
Fucking hate how you can't edit posts. Added an important comma.

People aren't islands. Even fairly innocuous sexual activities can result in unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and heartbreak. The reason we discourage them is because they're necessary for social cohesion.

This is so fucking stupid. There's this thing called contraceptives and birth control and condoms.

>What matters is not judging others because it's pointless.
Yeah, god forbid some degenerate fag feels regret and shame over his poor life choices! That would be, like, literally Hitler.

And yet STI rates are at an all-time high.

usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/10/19/cdc-sexually-transmitted-disease-rates-rising/92411446/

As are abortions, which are morally reprehensible.

it is

>As are abortions, which are morally reprehensible.
fucking kill yourself. And you know why sexually transmitted diseases is at an all time high? In america they teach abstinence only sex courses, and don't teach about safe sex. It's because moralizing pieces of shit like you haven't fucked off and died that we have this problem.

>he thinks women like using condoms
>he doesn't know that the reason cirvical cancer rates are shooting up like crazy is that a 35 year old woman's cunt is a veritable lab of infectious diseases
lmfao

old people have plenty of stds and they clearly know about condoms

Your jimmies seem rustled. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your degenerate lifestyle choices, hhmm?

pedophilia is cool

Shut the fuck up

STIs are at an all time high in most of Europe as well. The notion that A, most American schools teach abstinence, and B, modern women actually use condoms are myths.

Also, what does this have to do with my stance on abortion? Condom usages, which I support, is a distinct issue from whether or not abortion is morally justifiable.

If you think abortion shouldn't happen you should be for condoms and contraceptives. Jesus christ.

>And you know why sexually transmitted diseases is at an all time high? In america they teach abstinence only sex courses
lol it's the liberal, high minded girls who go raw. They're on birth control anyways, so they don't care.

I AM FOR CONDOMS AND CONTRACEPTIVE USE READ MY FUCKING POSTS

Anyways, the point of the OP wasn't to talk about safe sex, it was to talk about moralizing dogma.

He fails to understand that moralizing isn't arbitrary; it's about frowning on activities that, when extrapolated to society as a whole, would cause damage.

You realize the definition of arbitrary, right? It means you can turn something off at your own whim. Moralizing is stupid, because it fails to take into account that human nature isn't controllable by morality. Each person has their own individual morality, which is separate from your own. Each individual person is the main character in their life, and they don't operate on your morality. So you can't judge people as if they were operating on your morality, and then punish them as if they just decided on their own will to not operate according to your morality. Each person is part of the ultimate morally indifferent cosmos, we came from star dust and we operate according to the same laws of physics that drive everything else on earth. Judging a human being is no different from getting mad at a tree for falling on your car. It's just fucking stupid.

That is the point of this thread, which perhaps I should append to the bottom of the post.

What a sweet post. Are you a freshmen?

Wanna what else are inherent aspects of human nature? Rape, murder, tribalism, the weak suffering at the hands of the strong, marrying 14 year old girls, etc. Societal standards are a way of mediating our baser instincts in order to form a coherent and safe society.

Taking only individual will into consideration doesn't work because actions reverberate. Like I said, people aren't island; they exist in relation to one another.

My post deals with societal stigmas, and how they're essentially pointless. If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I said an intellectual can have morals, but not hold others in contempt because it's essentially pointless. I don't know why this isn't apparent to you. If you're going to bring up things like the need for a justice system, which I didn't allude to in my post (I have a massive number of problems with the justice system particularly in america), then I'd say we base our system on draconian punishment and torment of individuals instead of rehabilitation. Look at this video of norway's prison system compared to ours, the contrast is stark youtube.com/watch?v=39_2DtpnPus

youtube.com/watch?v=ki1pH9bzW9M

Moral judgments are a method of discouraging socially destructive behavior. It's really that simple. This has nothing to do with whether or not rehabilitation is a more effective means of dealing with crime than punishment is. The point is that if you don't have a moral framework by which to judge the actions of people you're forced to share the planet with, then the concept of what's morally justifiable is up to the people with the guns to decide.

>societal stigmas
This is why Christianity is so important to our culture. It allows us to dote out moral judgments while also avoiding stigmatizing people by allowing their sins to be forgiven.

You can be a moral person and not be judgmental of others, it's really "quite simple", as you'd put it. I suppose you think that because I don't subscribe to moral dogma, that I am somehow a worse person because of it. Regardless of whether or not you think that, you have no evidence to back up that claim, and the claim itself is false. A lot of people don't subscribe to dogmas, instilling people with dogmas and stigmas really does nothing but make them afraid of their own human nature, which is a folly of religion. Instead of understanding and accepting human nature, people think that human nature is dirty and bad and feel ashamed for things that society could erroneously deem as bad, which I outlined at the end of my post; I very distinctly talked about behavior that harms others, and behavior that does not harm others.

>>Wanna what else are inherent aspects of human nature? Rape, murder, tribalism, the weak suffering at the hands of the strong, marrying 14 year old girls, etc. Societal standards are a way of mediating our baser instincts in order to form a coherent and safe society.
holy shit found the liberal speaking after 20 years of mandatory liberal education

Except when people don't believe in that crap and people who are religious fill prisons way more than atheists do.

Wish I could call it undergraduate but I'm not looking to complement it.

Please re-read your pic and realize that people are calling it entry-level because you literally don't need a brain to write some of this shit in current year. It's been the underlying belief for awhile.
>intellectually consistent
>When these conservative dipshits will realizeā€¦
>assuming human nature is a thing at all in the way you're describing it.

I'm going to assume some of it is bait because it's such common thinking that it must be exaggeratedly common.

You're just straw manning the whole argument.

You do realize that nearly every society that has ever existed has had a form of religion? And that Christianity itself is an offshoot of certain aspects of human nature?

>Instead of understanding and accepting human nature, people think that human nature is dirty and bad and feel ashamed for things that society could erroneously deem as bad

There seems to be two points here. First, that there are some things that society deems to be bad that actually aren't bad. An second, that dealing with criminals should be predicated on the understanding that free will is an illusion and that they're just acting in accordance with their own nature. The first point is vague and uninteresting. And as for the second point, look, you seem to concede that there are action that society should discourage for the benefit of the whole (otherwise you couldn't punish murderers and rapists); the question then is whether making those destructive actions taboo through societal pressure is a valid way of discouraging them. If it is, then it justifies itself.

That's because Christianity is for people in dire straits.

>You do realize that nearly every society that has ever existed has had a form of religion? And that Christianity itself is an offshoot of certain aspects of human nature?
This is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy.

/r/cringe

It's a recognition that religious belief doesn't act in opposition to human nature, but is itself an aspect of human nature.

Ironically, one of the points that I made in my writing is that ironically, human beings create these dogmas that they impose on themselves. I explicitly stated that it's in human nature to create dogmas, which is actually the double entendre of the title of the post. It refers to the dogma against human nature, and how it's in human nature to create dogma. The dogma by human nature, and the dogma against human nature. They're one in the same.

Okay, then if you understand that dogma is human nature expressed at a societal level, then the question is why do you privilege the will of the individual person over the will of the whole tribe?

bump

No one gets special privilege. That's the whole point. It's ironic that you'd say that, because it exalts the arbitrary "virtuousness" of the group, which is simply a mob rules mentality anyways.

What constitutes virtuous isn't going to be defined here by you and me; people have been trying for millennia. My point is about forming a society that's peaceful and coherent, and my criteria for both is a society with the least amount of suffering possible (including mental suffering, like depression) for the most amount of people.

In the forming of such a society, you need taboos that might infringe on an individual's will for the purpose of creating a cohesion that will lead to a more contented population. The taboo against adultery is a good example of limiting freedom in order to keep families together and avoiding conflict.

So you admit that you can't define virtue, yet it's good that society has it's own arbitrary virtues? The irony is thick. I don't want to do this all day with you, I want to go read my book. I will say that I'm not against laws in theory. I do think the laws of society have largely failed, hence having so many non violent drug offenders in prison. In practice I find the laws and justice system abhorrently inhumane. And you say that taboos are good, but you fail to mention the tendency of taboos to be erroneous, which, again, is something that I stated in the OP which you really never seemed to have any interest in talking about in the first place. I'm done with you.

I set up my definition of what constitutes a virtuous society, i'm just conceding that the term can only be applied relatively and subjectively, not objectively. This is very different from "arbitrary." Most of the taboos we have in place weren't formed by accident or have absolutely no basis in natural law.

>you fail to mention the tendency of taboos to be erroneous

>I do think the laws of society have largely failed, hence having so many non violent drug offenders in prison.

You're arguing that our particular laws and customs have failed us, not that the concepts of laws and customs are themselves faulty. These are two very different points.

Capitalize the S.

I find it troubling that you conflate laws with stigmas and prejudices. Those are inherently based on fear and ignorance. You hate someone because they are threatening, because you can't rationalize why they exist. I am for laws, in the sense that a society must have some sort of repercussions for crimes, but that doesn't include stigmatizing criminals. Criminals are only criminals because they've blighted the society as a whole, but society is only made of individuals as well whom don't have any inherent superiority over someone else, just because they've devised arbitrary laws that say "you are inferior, I am superior". In a world that I imagine, there wouldn't be any stigmas, and a person who commits a crime would be put in prison, but would be treated with respect in the same way that we would want to treat that person when they finally leave prison and go back into society.

It always struck me as starkly ironic, that we treat people like shit when they're in prison, and then we expect them to come back into society reformed. They become worse criminals when they're in jail, just listen to the testimony of so many prisoners. I've heard many throughout the years. Look at the norway prison system as an example of how I would want a prison system to be. Hopefully we could create a society where kindness and treating each other with respect is held to the highest standard, which would in turn help the problem at home where it originates. A lot of people who cause trouble don't develop in a vacuum, and are often the products of their environment. Even more so, if they were simply unlawful by nature, that would be all the more reason to have high respect for the, because they're simply products of nature.

bump

>What matters is not judging others because it's pointless.
WRONG

Judging others and being judged by others is a large part of what makes a functioning, relatively stable society. This is why many cultures are majorly fucked up: because they don't face any of that judgement.