Everyone is killing and torturing everyone, especially the really smart intuitives, who can easily abstract this behavior to the future and present as an immediate threat.
There are a great many levels of evolution to how people respond to this.
The truest instinct is that it’s ok to murder or torture anyone, because, everyone is destroying the species and they need to learn viscerally, what they are doing.
However, as that level of abstraction settles in, obviously, killing or torturing 1 or 10 or 1000 people isn’t going to effect change where the species is a torturing homicide machine. So they just don’t attack anyone, to not contradict themselves.
People who are intelligent but with lesser insight, will.
It is not false to feel attacked and tortured by almost everyone. These are justifiable murders and tortures.
The problem that ultimately makes them unjustifiable is the vastness of the problem, then you just look like a stupid hypocrite.
You realize at that moment, that the only thing that CAN change it is words!
Half agree. That is a (I will call it) yang instinct. There is an even deeper (I will call it) Yin instinct to move away, avoid, run from other people and to protect oneself from immediate threats. And we know deep down that in most situations, attacking increases immediate threats. People who tend towards rage and agressive action will think at the deepest level they have to attack, now.
and out of self-care. The threats are not just down the road. And attacking people instantly increases the danger and many of us get that in our deepest levels. For me it would only be in situations where I sense an immediate physical threat that I will gap into violence.
When dealing with psychology, you have to understand that most people are just trying to get their bearings on wisdom nobody is taught, the mere fact that it’s not being taught is enough to set someone off, as being in an immediate threat situation.
For example, someone like Jeffrey dahmer intuited that young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. They were directly affecting his life, well being and survival.
So he hunted them.
He would eat them to cleanse their sins, making them part of his “sinless” body.
It really doesn’t take much for pathologies to grow in environments in this world. All you have to do is control data set exposure, and the ever present silence, and you’ll end up with people who absorb all of the suicidality and/or homicidality in the species.
Meaning: the species is killing itself and everyon is murdering everyone, and all they do is double talk about ho much life means to them.
This is enough to drive anyone crazy, that the insane ones are causing the most damage (the happy bliss of double speak aggressive ignorance)
In terms of judgement, you have to look at what the person actually knows to truly make a harsh judgement.
I could convict anyone on earth as criminally insane right now.
I wouldn’t bother, because the judges and jury are criminally insane, but I know how to prove it.
I wanted to add, that MagsJ’s executive decision to sensor me on the issue of rape is actually doing a disservice to the human population.
Yes, all heterosexual and bisexual men are indeed rapists, and they enjoy it, and all heterosexual women are the willing participants, joyfully I might add, to their own rapes. That’s a species fact.
All humans on this earth, including the Jesus story (though it wasn’t sexual - so not rape proper) are no means yes relationships - we are all rape babies.
Someone who projects a lot would be very offended by this. The facts are incontrovertible…
You can actually have the types of rapists that MagsJ acknowledges come to terms with their acting out, by pointing out everyone else’s hypocrisy … from there they can rationalize their old behavior and stop projecting it onto others, remove that anger and rage and move on.
There’s atonement to be had as well.
Atonement is when you stop acting out, and you prevent as many instances of your acting out as you did to others.
Depends on the man. Women are pickier than men. To do a proper comparison requires sampling only men that the women find attractive, which is nearly impossible to do since one woman’s hunk will be an “ew” to another woman.
For example: be a man in any culture, even Islamic ones… no matter the male, if he stripped in a train station, the women (even in a safe crowded space) would be more averse than men will be, gasps, shock, actual fear.
Now if women did this… are the men scared? No!!
Not a chance!!
The difference between a culture like ours and theirs (islamists) is that our culture doesn’t interpret female sexually signaling as necessary consent.
The comfort/discomfort ratios are cross cultural however… women relative to men.
I still don’t see how any of that qualifies as rape, except maybe in the Islamist case, but even then it could be argued that the woman made the first offensive move by dressing like a slut.
It qualifies as rape because it activates the “no means yes” operator.
I’m not making the normal feminist argument that all sex is rape… of which there are two luminaries for that, I’m using a different argument that makes it POSSIBLE that sex isn’t rape.
I didn’t think of it at the time, but that’s another super-obvious reason MagsJ should not have censored me. It’s a damn classic feminist argument from women that all sex is ONLY rape.
Oh ok, so long as only some sex is rape, then I can see where you’re coming from. It was the “all sex is rape” impression that I had at first that caused me problems.
My argument is that all past and current sex is rape, not that future sex has to be rape, which, MagsJ, is a classical FEMINIST argument, from FEMALES.
Aright I’m confused again lol, but that’s ok because I’m sure you have it conceptualized somehow that makes sense to you, but I can’t see it mainly because I don’t want to put the effort into finding yet more ways people are exploiting each other, especially if it’s that complicated to explain. I suspect KT will have lots of fun with this in the morning lol
I don’t know what to say about Mags except that she doesn’t talk enough for me to formulate an impression, but she seems cool from what I can tell. Are you sure you didn’t go overboard?
All human thoughts and beliefs are subjective… even according to objectivists.
I don’t see how this is confusing…
All you’re committed to believing as an objectivist, is that an objective reality exists. It’s not necessary to also believe you have an unerring understanding of that reality.
In other words, objectivists CAN and DO believe they can be wrong about what’s objectively real.
But then again your definitions of “subjective” and “objective” are fairly uncommon. So let’s not let semantics confuse us.
I am not using YOUR definitions… I’m using those words as defined historically.
I’m not sure HOW to use your definitions…
It seems to me the only thing you would call “objective” is something “unconditionally real”…
Which would mean only the force or forces that are universal and eternal would qualify as “objective”… everything else is “subject” to certain conditions.
So anything conditional like “murder is wrong, depending on the situation” would make it “subject” to the conditions.
Even temporal things, like “on august 3rd 1992 it rained somewhere on planet earth” is subject to that specific date as well as subject to there being a planet earth etc.
