Hail, comrades!

[Xunzian]

TheZeus pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why Nihilism is often the worst sort of moralizing. They claim the virtue of the strong and their right to claim everything, but when you point out that present society has shown itself to be a good deal stronger than the disorganized world they advocate, they cry foul. Either might makes right and the strong rule . . . or you are just making up definitions as you go along to suit your ends.

[thezeus18]

@Xunzian

TheZeus pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why Nihilism is often the worst sort of moralizing. They claim the virtue of the strong and their right to claim everything, but when you point out that present society has shown itself to be a good deal stronger than the disorganized world they advocate, they cry foul. Either might makes right and the strong rule . . . or you are just making up definitions as you go along to suit your ends.

Woah, I said that? Cool!

Edit: I mean, ahem, right. Exactly, Xunzian.

[thezeus18]

I killed it. I killed the thread. How did I do that?

[Xunzian]

Murderer.

[ThoughtsInChaos]

Sorry for my lack of replies. I’ve not been visiting here much, I’ve been sorting out my ideas and attempting to write a little something to make it somewhat coherent to a mind outside my own (and maybe to my own mind as well).

@thezeus18

Plants grow.

Yes, but only by feeding upon the compost of the dead.

Why? Because it fits the data, because it’s malleable, because then morality isn’t set in stone, but you can still say definitely whether an action in context is moral or immoral. I’m just providing definitions of the terms “moral” and “immoral” that fit what they have been applied to in the past.

And why are past applications of morality valid? What -is- morality set in, if not in stone?

Yeah, but they’d also get wiped out real quick by a moral, organized society.

A society of sheep, which would decay and degenerate, like the good’ ol U$A has.

Sure, all actions are permitted, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be classified based on their effect on the doer’s society.

It means nothing if the classification has no substance.

For the same reason, it harms people and benefits you. I thought that was kind of obvious.

What constitutes harm?

As for exploitation being the basis of life, sure, I’ll buy it. Exploitation is fine if you can get away with it. But you can’t get away with exploiting other humans, because it usually comes back to bite you.

Yes, by force.

[Kriswest]

Well I finally remembered this thread and now I remember why I put it out of my mind. Your reply to me was humorous and predictable and wrong.

Wrong because you don’t observe you only see.

[thezeus18]

@ThoughtsInChaos

Sorry for my lack of replies. I’ve not been visiting here much, I’ve been sorting out my ideas and attempting to write a little something to make it somewhat coherent to a mind outside my own (and maybe to my own mind as well).

@thezeus18

Plants grow.

Yes, but only by feeding upon the compost of the dead.

So?

Why? Because it fits the data, because it’s malleable, because then morality isn’t set in stone, but you can still say definitely whether an action in context is moral or immoral. I’m just providing definitions of the terms “moral” and “immoral” that fit what they have been applied to in the past.

And why are past applications of morality valid? What -is- morality set in, if not in stone?

They’re not necessarily still valid, but they were once valid, because people followed them.

What do you mean, “what is morality set in?”

Yeah, but they’d also get wiped out real quick by a moral, organized society.

A society of sheep, which would decay and degenerate, like the good’ ol U$A has.

First of all, like Xunzian said, my sheep beat your lion, so what happens afterwards doesn’t really matter because you’ve already lost.

Second, do you mean the United States of America is degenerating like, into a society where it’s every man for himself? Like the one you propose?

Your argument is like “Band-aids suck because they eventually fall off. Everybody should just let their wounds go open to the air instead.” The solution to something not lasting is to try and make it last longer, not to forego using it at all because it doesn’t last.

Sure, all actions are permitted, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be classified based on their effect on the doer’s society.

It means nothing if the classification has no substance.

For the same reason, it harms people and benefits you. I thought that was kind of obvious.

What constitutes harm?

A decrease in the lifespan of the affected. And I mean lifespan like generations. Or, you could say a decrease in the chance of suvival of the affected, if you like.

As for exploitation being the basis of life, sure, I’ll buy it. Exploitation is fine if you can get away with it. But you can’t get away with exploiting other humans, because it usually comes back to bite you.

Yes, by force.

I don’t catch your hazy drift.