back to the beginning: morality

[phyllo]

Phyllo, you're just sour grapes pissed because it's a disproof of god.

Didn't see that coming.

[MagsJ]

Phyllo, you're just sour grapes pissed because it's a disproof of god.

Didn't see that coming.

Lol.

..and thanks for reminding me (with that emoticon) that Transformers 4 is on at 9.

Not seen it.. wanted to in the cinema, but didn't get round to it. Hope it's good.

[Ecmandu]

I have already told him more than once that the only solution to consent violation is extinction
This is because once the human species is dead no one can violate anyones consent ever again
And so Mother Nature will take care of the problem for us because entropy comes as standard

Ecmandu however prefers his own approach : create hyper dimensional mirrors where we all have our own Universe
The delicious irony is that by the time Mother Nature has finally taken care of him he will no longer be able to do this
And once we are all taken care of the question becomes academic since consent violation will no longer be a problem

Now one could say that Mother Nature is violating Ecmandus consent by killing him as she does with every life form but he is powerless to stop this
And also consent violation is only really a feature of sufficiently complex minds with free will so does not include either Mother Nature or sidewalks

I'll tell you what I know. I learned all of this against my will, kicking and screaming the whole time.

1.) Spirits go on and on and on.

2.) when you're possessed by a 'dead' spirit, you can feel its human body in you

I'm not going to pretend that I know more than that, I'm not that smart.

I do know that one saying in the spirit world is: "revenge is so much sweeter on the other side"

I also know that if we ever cease to exist, we could not be here right now, as now is a subset of our existence.

I think you need to open your mind a bit.

I understand that explaining that to you is like trying to explain the color green to a blind person. I used to be you - I'm not mad at you.

[surreptitious75]

There is a difference between having an open mind and accepting everything you say without question

So it is not a question of me opening my mind rather of you explaining your thought process in a logical and rational way
I cannot take you seriously when you post nonsense like the sidewalk violated your consent because you stubbed your toe

You may want to consider why many here - if not all - find your posts completely incoherent and so do not take you seriously
Considering your very high IQ you should be entirely capable of constructing consistently valid arguments of excellent quality

[Ecmandu]

There is a difference between having an open mind and accepting everything you say without question

So it is not a question of me opening my mind rather of you explaining your thought process in a logical and rational way
I cannot take you seriously when you post nonsense like the sidewalk violated your consent because you stubbed your toe

You may want to consider why many here - if not all - find your posts completely incoherent and so do not take you seriously
Considering your very high IQ you should be entirely capable of constructing consistently valid arguments of excellent quality

Not the sidewalk ... existence itself.

Consent violation is always internal, it doesn't matter if no agency external occurs, such as a sidewalk.

It's not an ideosyncratic use of English to consider non anthropomorphic bad as violating our consent.

You're picking nits here.

[surreptitious75]

If I walk down the sidewalk and stub my toe I am in no way using English incorrectly to say that violated my consent

This is the actual quote and it could be interpreted to mean as I thought so that the sidewalk violated your consent

I would on reflection say that it is your responsibility to look where you are going so if you do stub your toe it is no ones fault but your own
You went on to say that stubbing your toe is evil which is one of the most ridiculous things you have said on the forum but not the only one

You never engage with anyone but just carry on posting your nonsense and violating their consent by making them respond to it like I am now
Anyway keep on posting your nonsense but I do not have the mental energy required to keep responding to it ad infinitum so I am out of here

[Ecmandu]

If I walk down the sidewalk and stub my toe I am in no way using English incorrectly to say that violated my consent

This is the actual quote and it could be interpreted to mean as I thought so that the sidewalk violated your consent

I would on reflection say that it is your responsibility to look where you are going so if you do stub your toe it is no ones fault but your own
You went on to say that stubbing your toe is evil which is one of the most ridiculous things you have said on the forum but not the only one

You never engage with anyone but just carry on posting your nonsense and violating their consent by making them respond to it like I am now
Anyway keep on posting your nonsense but I do not have the mental energy required to keep responding to it ad infinitum so I am out of here

You're missing my whole argument !

If it is POSSIBLE!!! For consent to be violated in existence, existence is immoral. That doesn't mean that existence is an intelligent being, simply that it is currently, morally (from our internal evaluation) incorrect.

You want to anthropomorphise everything... thus refuting my argument, which is a really bad straw man.

We can have our consent violated by non sentience as well as sentience.

All we have to do is look inside and ask ourselves, "is this violating my consent?" If the answer is "yes", we know that existence is objectively immoral, even if it's not sentient.

[Ecmandu]

If I walk down the sidewalk and stub my toe I am in no way using English incorrectly to say that violated my consent

This is the actual quote and it could be interpreted to mean as I thought so that the sidewalk violated your consent

I would on reflection say that it is your responsibility to look where you are going so if you do stub your toe it is no ones fault but your own
You went on to say that stubbing your toe is evil which is one of the most ridiculous things you have said on the forum but not the only one

You never engage with anyone but just carry on posting your nonsense and violating their consent by making them respond to it like I am now
Anyway keep on posting your nonsense but I do not have the mental energy required to keep responding to it ad infinitum so I am out of here

You're missing my whole argument !

If it is POSSIBLE!!! For consent to be violated in existence, existence is immoral. That doesn't mean that existence is an intelligent being, simply that it is currently, morally (from our internal evaluation) incorrect.

You want to anthropomorphise everything... thus refuting my argument, which is a really bad straw man.

We can have our consent violated by non sentience as well as sentience.

All we have to do is look inside and ask ourselves, "is this violating my consent?" If the answer is "yes", we know that existence is objectively immoral, even if it's not sentient.

I'll explain my whole argument in three stages:

1.) one thing every sentient being has in common is that nobody wants their consent violated

2.) every sentient being when pressed, is having their consent violated in some way, which we all have in common as well

3.) from this, we can conclude that the most radical thing a sentient being can do is throw a giant "fuck this shit!" To the entire cosmos and make the cosmos a better place!

[surreptitious75]

Your entire argument is false because the foundation of it is flawed
Existence is neither moral or immoral - Existence is actually amoral

Only human minds think in terms of morality / immorality
And so it is a human concept and no one or no thing elses

You therefore cannot take an exclusively human concept and apply it to all of Existence
Before human beings existed the concept of morality / immorality did not exist anywhere

And so consent violation with regard to immorality can therefore only logically apply to human beings and no one or no thing else in Existence
Unless there are other beings in the Universe who understand the concepts of morality / immorality those concepts will die with our extinction

You will not accept this because consent violation is your thing but my arguments against it as you define it are logically valid and yours by default are invalid

[Ecmandu]

Your entire argument is false because the foundation of it is flawed
Existence is neither moral or immoral - Existence is actually amoral

Only human minds think in terms of morality / immorality
And so it is a human concept and no one or no thing elses

You therefore cannot take an exclusively human concept and apply it to all of Existence
Before human beings existed the concept of morality / immorality did not exist anywhere

And so consent violation with regard to immorality can therefore only logically apply to human beings and no one or no thing else in Existence
Unless there are other beings in the Universe who understand the concepts of morality / immorality those concepts will die with our extinction

You will not accept this because consent violation is your thing but my arguments against it as you define it are logically valid and yours by default are invalid

Existence is not amoral to sentient beings.

If I step on a nail accidentally, I can, with no logical contradiction, state that existence violated my consent.

[surreptitious75]

one thing every sentient being has in common is that nobody wants their consent violated

You are guilty of anthropomorphising here which is what you accused me of rather ironically
You have absolutely zero idea what animal minds think about consent violation - none at all

[surreptitious75]

Existence is not amoral to sentient beings

What sentient beings think is irrelevant as my point was that Existence itself is amoral
Anything you or anyone else thinks about Existence is simply subjective interpretation

But I was stating an objective fact - it is neither moral or immoral - it merely exists as the name implies
It is human minds who think their projection is synonymous with actual truth when it is simply an opinion

[iambiguous]

"Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible"
Julien Beillard argues that it makes no sense to say that morality is relatively true.
From Philosophy Now magazine.

The diversity of beliefs and ways of life is a striking fact about our species. What Mormons find right and reasonable may be abhorrent to Marxists or Maoris. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice for reasons we find totally unconvincing, and no doubt future people may be similarly perplexed or repulsed by some of our practices. For such reasons, some conclude that there is no objective truth about morality. They say moral disagreement is best explained by the idea that there are many different and incompatible relative moral truths, which are in some way determined by the beliefs of a given society; and that this is the only kind of moral truth there is. So for the Aztecs it was true that human sacrifice is morally permissible, although it is false for us.

What this suggests to me is the manner in which [historically, culturely] morality often becomes entangled in the murky mudlle embedded at the juncture of things thought to be reasonable by some in one particular context and unreasonable by others in another.

Thus for the Aztecs back then who did not have access to the scientific knowledge we have to explain the forces of nature, why not suppose that the gods need to be appeased by human sacrifices?

While, in the modern world, it does seem unreasonable to pursue this sort of behavior.

But it is still construed to be reasonable by any number of religious and secular denominations to impose particular rewards and punishments for behaviors that other religious and nonreligious folks deem to be quite irrational.

So, morality ever and always was, is and will revolve around one's capacity to demonstrate -- God or No God -- what actually is a rational human behavior.

[Ecmandu]

one thing every sentient being has in common is that nobody wants their consent violated

You are guilty of anthropomorphising here which is what you accused me of rather ironically
You have absolutely zero idea what animal minds think about consent violation - none at all

If you dropped an ant in a glass of water, it is self evident by its struggle, that you are violating its consent.

You're the one projecting anthropomorphism here, you are insistent that it must be two ways. I am trying to explain that it only need be one way

[Ecmandu]

"Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible"
Julien Beillard argues that it makes no sense to say that morality is relatively true.
From Philosophy Now magazine.

The diversity of beliefs and ways of life is a striking fact about our species. What Mormons find right and reasonable may be abhorrent to Marxists or Maoris. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice for reasons we find totally unconvincing, and no doubt future people may be similarly perplexed or repulsed by some of our practices. For such reasons, some conclude that there is no objective truth about morality. They say moral disagreement is best explained by the idea that there are many different and incompatible relative moral truths, which are in some way determined by the beliefs of a given society; and that this is the only kind of moral truth there is. So for the Aztecs it was true that human sacrifice is morally permissible, although it is false for us.

What this suggests to me is the manner in which [historically, culturely] morality often becomes entangled in the murky mudlle embedded at the juncture of things thought to be reasonable by some in one particular context and unreasonable by others in another.

Thus for the Aztecs back then who did not have access to the scientific knowledge we have to explain the forces of nature, why not suppose that the gods need to be appeased by human sacrifices?

While, in the modern world, it does seem unreasonable to pursue this sort of behavior.

But it is still construed to be reasonable by any number of religious and secular denominations to impose particular rewards and punishments for behaviors that other religious and nonreligious folks deem to be quite irrational.

So, morality ever and always was, is and will revolve around one's capacity to demonstrate -- God or No God -- what actually is a rational human behavior.

No dude.

You don't seem to understand that I proved through proof through contradiction through proof through self evident definition that ethics is objective:

I'll explain my whole argument in three stages:

1.) one thing every sentient being has in common is that nobody wants their consent violated

2.) every sentient being when pressed, is having their consent violated in some way, which we all have in common as well

3.) from this we can objectively define existence as bad

4.) from this, we can conclude that the most radical thing a sentient being can do is throw a giant "fuck this shit!" To the entire cosmos and make the cosmos a better place!

[iambiguous]

No dude.

You don't seem to understand that I proved through proof through contradiction through proof through self evident definition that ethics is objective:

I'll explain my whole argument in three stages:

1.) one thing every sentient being has in common is that nobody wants their consent violated

2.) every sentient being when pressed, is having their consent violated in some way, which we all have in common as well

3.) from this we can objectively define existence as bad

4.) from this, we can conclude that the most radical thing a sentient being can do is throw a giant "fuck this shit!" To the entire cosmos and make the cosmos a better place!

No dude, I'm through with you here. The only place I [or, for that matter, anyone] can take you seriously is in/on the rant thread. There you will [by rote I now suspect] continue to ignore the arguments being made by insisting that everyone else is ignoring the arguments that you are making.

Only [there] in huffing and puffing mode.

We're all fools then, right?

[Ecmandu]

No dude.

You don't seem to understand that I proved through proof through contradiction through proof through self evident definition that ethics is objective:

I'll explain my whole argument in three stages:

1.) one thing every sentient being has in common is that nobody wants their consent violated

2.) every sentient being when pressed, is having their consent violated in some way, which we all have in common as well

3.) from this we can objectively define existence as bad

4.) from this, we can conclude that the most radical thing a sentient being can do is throw a giant "fuck this shit!" To the entire cosmos and make the cosmos a better place!

No dude, I'm through with you here. The only place I [or, for that matter, anyone] can take you seriously is in/on the rant thread. There you will [by rote I now suspect] continue to ignore the arguments being made by insisting that everyone else is ignoring the arguments that you are making.

Only [there] in huffing and puffing mode.

We're all fools then, right?

You have not once addressed a single point I've made.

I went out of my way to address your need for context:

I stated:

Existence is the context

The proof through contradiction is the self evident appraisal we all have of being able to evaluate our personal consent.

I'm talking to you, you're not talking to me.

Stop doing that!

My time is valuable.

I actually pay attention to you, show some decency and respect

[Ecmandu]

Read the above post^^^

Are you going to pull a uccisore iambiguous??

Intentionally flame a non rant thread so that it HAS to be moved to rant, so he can't be publicly humiliated ?? Uccisore was a sociopath, I suspect that you are one as well.

I'll be interested to see how you handle this

[promethean75]

it's happening again, E. some crazy synchronicity shit. check this out dude. okay remember how i used to pick on you for listening to air supply? well, right after i posted my last one in this thread this morning, i went outside to crank ludwig van up and go to work (had a side job today). the very moment i turned the radio on... guess what song began. 'i'm all out of love' by air supply. i mean the second i pressed 'on'.

but here's the thing. air supply is never played, even when they're doing the great 80s hour. in fact, i haven't heard that song in ten years at least. no man. this was a message from the spirits. through manipulating quantum superposition they suspended the linear causal chain of events that led up to that moment and made that song play instead of something else.

i don't know what to make of it, though. are they telling me that you're all out of love? wtf am i supposed to do? i think you need me, bro. i don't know what for yet, but we're gonna figure this shit out together.

[Ecmandu]

it's happening again, E. some crazy synchronicity shit. check this out dude. okay remember how i used to pick on you for listening to air supply? well, right after i posted my last one in this thread this morning, i went outside to crank ludwig van up and go to work (had a side job today). the very moment i turned the radio on... guess what song began. 'i'm all out of love' by air supply. i mean the second i pressed 'on'.

but here's the thing. air supply is never played, even when they're doing the great 80s hour. in fact, i haven't heard that song in ten years at least. no man. this was a message from the spirits. through manipulating quantum superposition they suspended the linear causal chain of events that led up to that moment and made that song play instead of something else.

i don't know what to make of it, though. are they telling me that you're all out of love? wtf am i supposed to do? i think you need me, bro. i don't know what for yet, but we're gonna figure this shit out together.

Music is a nasty tormentor. It heals us, yet it is not only sexual signaling from men (ornate behavior) the lyrics almost always 100% contradict themselves.

This is iambiguous's 'conflicting goods'

I struggle with music deeply in this world.

You're asking me something a bit over my head.

Not the synchronicity stuff, but how to morally relate to music as a whole.

[Karpel Tunnel]

1. I already said that I was testing his 'consent violation' morality.
He doesn't care about violating my consent at all.

I think you do give consent to see opinions you disagree with and dislike and it's part of your motivation to come here. IOW it might hypothetically have been, the first time you read one of his posts, a consent violation, but it wasn't. So, it's not a test.

2. Sure, I could step aside and let the lunatics run the asylum. But I think it's better to expose their nonsense for what it is.

So, you choose to read posts that you disagree with and dislike. And you know what his posts are like or might be from early on and yet repeat.

3. In this 'consent violation' morality, my consent is being violated. He is doing the violating. I'm the victim. He is the perpetrator. Should I/we accommodate the perp?

Yeah, women could avoid being raped by not wearing tight fitting clothes, not going to bars, movies or riding the bus. But is that the appropriate response? I think not.

I think not either. On the other hand, as I think I said elsewhere, he is being a consequentialist, and sees it as a lesser evil, and since he is not raping you, if even violating your consent, it is a small consent violation, even if it is one, with the goal of minimizing the acceptance of consent violation in general. Most moralities allow for lesser evil actions, even up to carrying out justified military conflict.

I get the position you are trying to put him in, but it seems kind of coquettish and not true that he violated your consent. I don't think you actually experienced it that way. I think you enjoy a good scuffle.

I think you're having a good time. I see you running back to the bar, where your alleged rapist is and you wanted to test him - that is, in your analogy, have another sexual act with him - again and again, and continued after allegedly being raped.

And you play to the gallery about his rapes of you.

I ain't buying it as a test. I think you like a little rough trade. Not cause of your outfit, but because, shit, you keep seeing this guy. I see you around the town, having a good time, smiling, holding onto his arm, and running back to that bed with him.

Are you claiming battered women's syndrome?

You just don't meet the pschological criteria.

[phyllo]

I think you do give consent to see opinions you disagree with and dislike and it's part of your motivation to come here. IOW it might hypothetically have been, the first time you read one of his posts, a consent violation, but it wasn't. So, it's not a test.

I think that his 'consent violation' morality is nonsense. But if he believes that it is correct, then he ought to be able to apply it when someone states that his consent is being violated.

And my consent is being violated given the way that he defines the term. (It's not the way that I define it.)

I'm using his concepts, not mine.

So, you choose to read posts that you disagree with and dislike. And you know what his posts are like or might be from early on and yet repeat.

I ignore him most of the time. I don't read most of the threads on this site. But he came into this thread and suddenly he is in a cat fight with Iambig. Even if I had him on 'foe', I would still see him being quoted by other people.

Okay, if he is in a thread about morality in a philosophy forum and he is proposing an objective philosophy, then let's see how it works.

On the other hand, as I think I said elsewhere, he is being a consequentialist, and sees it as a lesser evil, and since he is not raping you, if even violating your consent, it is a small consent violation, even if it is one, with the goal of minimizing the acceptance of consent violation in general. Most moralities allow for lesser evil actions, even up to carrying out justified military conflict.

Sounds like you are giving him too much credit.

I get the position you are trying to put him in, but it seems kind of coquettish and not true that he violated your consent. I don't think you actually experienced it that way. I think you enjoy a good scuffle.

I think you're having a good time.

I've gone from participating in almost every forum on this site, to reading 4 threads and posting in 2. I'm having less of a "good time". I won't go into the reasons but you can guess about some of them.

[Ecmandu]

You're not the only person in the world phyllo, it's that simple.

Again, you speak false to power, I speak truth to power.

I have a moral obligation to spread the lesser of two evils.

You say that consent violation is good (false to power) I say that it's bad (truth to power)

I'd be more evil if I was like you, rather than like me.

I dare say phyllo, your bluster is not fooling anyone, you're victimhood is histrionic counter intelligence.

We need more intelligence in this world, not counter intelligence.

What about my consent being violated by you?

Didn't expect that did you?? When you were attempting to undermine my logical consistency ?

So we're violating each other's consent, right?

My argument is simple, that existence even allows this to occur in the first place makes it objectively evil.

[phyllo]

You're not the only person in the world phyllo, it's that simple.

Again, you speak false to power, I speak truth to power.

I have a moral obligation to spread the lesser of two evils.

You say that consent violation is good (false to power) I say that it's bad (truth to power)

I'd be more evil if I was like you, rather than like me.

I dare say phyllo, your bluster is not fooling anyone, you're victimhood is histrionic counter intelligence.

We need more intelligence in this world, not counter intelligence.

What about my consent being violated by you?

Didn't expect that did you?? When you were attempting to undermine my logical consistency ?

So we're violating each other's consent, right?

My argument is simple, that existence even allows this to occur in the first place makes it objectively evil.

What should I do KT?

I don't have him or anyone on 'foe' so this thing popped up on my screen. It has my name all over it and a load of false statements.

You're not the only person in the world phyllo, it's that simple.

Yeah, I know that.

You say that consent violation is good (false to power)...

I never said that.

I think that 'existence' doesn't violate consent and inanimate objects don't violate consent. And the majority of times when people can be seen as violating consent, it's not even a moral issue. (Like when when I want a new car for $10 and the dealer won't sell it to me for less than $25000.)

Sure, there are moral situations of consent violation, but you don't even deal with that in this discussion. You're almost entirely focused on dumb shit.

I dare say phyllo, your bluster is not fooling anyone, you're victimhood is histrionic counter intelligence.

I'm only a victim within the context of your bizarre morality.

What about my consent being violated by you?

Didn't expect that did you?? When you were attempting to undermine my logical consistency ?

So we're violating each other's consent, right?

Right. Iambig's conflicting goods.

But you don't deal with that at all.

My argument is simple, that existence even allows this to occur in the first place makes it objectively evil.

Sigh. Existence isn't alive. Existence doesn't 'know' or 'care' or have the 'capacity to act' or 'allow/not allow'.

Therefore existence can't be 'evil' in any meaningful sense of the word.

[Karpel Tunnel]

What should I do KT?

What do you want to do?

I don't have him or anyone on 'foe' so this thing popped up on my screen. It has my name all over it and a load of false statements

If you don't like reading his posts, stop. If you are truly afraid your reputation will be besmirched, report him or argue. Maybe a walk in nature would be the best option. I don't know you well enough, but I feel oddly unworried about you reading or not reading his posts. I may be missing the gravity of the perpetration.