I’ve spent several years on other forums trying to learn and better myself and it seems apparent to me now that many of the places I frequented are infested with very deranged and sinister people…
I’m curious what others think about what I’ve learned about the psychological state of humanity from them…
First off, the definition of “good” is apparently “that which is desirable and/or acceptable…”
If humanity is abusing and slaughtering billions of acceptable/good beings, doesn’t that make them bad/evil? And if humanity designed their civilizations to force everyone to serve, support and pleasure billions of such bad/evil people, doesn’t that make them even worse? How can a species be considered good if they are attacking and destroying good while serving, pleasuring and fighting for evil?
So, if humanity is basically evil and thinks they are good/acceptable, doesn’t that suggest they are delusional and lacking intelligence (mentally handicapped)?
If you can’t even grasp the basics of good and bad or right and wrong, how can you be considered intelligent life?
So, is humanity a bunch of mentally handicapped animals lost in delusions of grandeur?
Yeah so nobody should be traveling faster than they can walk, swim, or run. Just forget paddling a boat or riding a bike without a motor. And don’t even get me started on things that have actual motors. Rockets? Airplanes? Bullet trains? All meat should be eaten raw. Batteries are sacrilege. Even trying to redirect sunlight into a focused spot to make fire is playing with fire.
This is the reality of the internet. Countless people go online anonymously so they can vent and express all their frustrations. That’s why many sound so pissed off at everything. Generally, it’s a harmless prosaic commoner with an ugly wife and noisy neighbors who takes advantage of online anonymity to pretend he’s very important and opinionated. I’ve learned the best way to deal with such figures: the ignore button.
Here’s where you as mistaken as the vitriolic online haters, though.
Humans do what they do in life to survive. They are animals. If you’re referring to killing animals for food, that’s what most species do, there’s no morality involved in that, only basic survival instincts.
Also, there’s no universal morality binding all human beings. Your good-ness is not mine.
Makes kind of sense, Allen Ginsburg on his way out commented that in the end only cockroaches will survive,pretty good point in 1982, but then, simulation was like a Kafka nightmare, a simulation looking for a two dimensional object.
Doesn’t this show you think there is a universal morality binding us to respect individual preferences?
Taking into account that everyone has their own preferences, as long as those preferences don’t violate anyone’s consent/preference, you can respect every consent(er) as an end-in-itself.
If this is recognized universally, it will smooth away any preferences (consents) that don’t respect preferences (consents). The only consents/preferences left standing will be those consents/preferences that respect consent/preference.
If this is not universally recognized, it will lead to cognitive dissonance due to alienation (divergence) from self and others (reality).
How come you’re stealing lines from Brian & Demon? You can’t even speak a different language from Demon and you can’t even like a different philosopher from Brian? You’re just a walking identity crisis, aren’t you?
…at least I’m consistent.
I don’t really care about this. I’m just in a weird mood. Don’t go cry to Brian’s mom about it.
I like the idea of a relational correspondence between a recent object that compares with one that’s more remote, and how more subjectivity is intrinsic in the former, and vice versa, and how that relation can affect each the way it’s thought about,as how that is perceived.
Like ying/yang, there is a hidden dimension, at times ignored, or inadvertently passed by.
Guys, don’t mind me, it’s just that the relation is also present with two axis relevance, that is present within the days of the familial and the familiar.
( freedom and responsibility is also a contentious factor)
