back to the beginning: morality

I believe it is him.

of course it is me. are you scared? what happened to the discord group you invited me to out of blue? if we gonna be buddies we have to treat eachother like ones.

Mr. Chickenshit on steroids!!!

Again, all I can do is note the points I raise that he absolutely refuses to address:

Instead, he has to create this hypothetical boogeyman culture where pedophilia and incest and bestiality are now embraced by the Liberal State and humanity itself is on the brink of extinction.

A suggestion: It’s time he brought Lyssa back to at least rein himself in.

Unless, of course, Maia succeeds. :wink:

Again, it’s not what he posts about me that is nearly as interesting as why he goes off the deep end in his reaction to me. As with Sculptor and Pood and Karpel Tunnel here at ILP, I suspect there is at least a part of him that recognizes I am making inroads in chipping away at his own value judgment dogmas. His own precious, arrogant is/ought Self. He’s getting closer himself to a fractured and fragmented “I”…and reacts to the one bringing this about as he does.

Are you saying the only reason humans in human societies deem and treat and view pedophilia, necrophilia, and homosexuality differently than they view heterosexuality is that they have been indoctrinated ideologically by a system of value judgments, ie. ideology???

Uh, anyone else?

I don’t exchange posts with fulminating fanatics that put even Satyr to shame. :laughing:

Just because you don’t like me does not make me insane dullard or just because you or any other kook says I am insane does not automatically prove it …I can say I am yellow …and have ant wings dullard…go fondle your daddy, truth is that you are scared and so are the kts twinks so you gypsy bandwagon just call me a name and move on since you have no honour nor interest in the truth, silent days are bitches tactic no??? agree to collectively ignore and censor so that there is no chance your collective bullshit fantasy gets spilled…its called a circle jerk friend…

wrong thread

The Death of Morality
Moral Fictionalism
Richard Joyce on what happens when falsehoods are too useful to throw out.

First, the “intellectual contraption” argument:

In my view, the “pickle” will always be there. Only, for me, that is derived from the manner in which I construe the “self” here as “fractured and fragmented”. On the other hand, what can epistemologists tell us definitively about this? What can we know objectively about human identity here as subsumed more or less in dasein or in deontology.

I merely make the assumption that morality is just the philosophical equivalent of “rules of behavior” in a world where there is no “for all practical purposes” choice other than to reward and punish particular behaviors in particular contexts.

There’s no getting around this in any specific community. Only the extent to which this revolves more around might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Then the existential context:

Not exactly the context I would prefer. After all, how many of us have come across a situation where this particular “conflicting good” became a moral conflagration on the order of those that often pop up “on the news”? And of course it merely assumes [as with God and religion] that astrology is bunk.

But here we are…

This pops into my head: “It depends on the context.” Besides, how terrible can the consequences be when anyone “utters the sentence ‘Sagittarians are characteristically optimistic’”?

Instead, given a particular context, it is when the consequences can be dire if you rub people the wrong way with your own moral conviction that tends to preoccupy me the most. For example living in a totalitarian or theocratic regime where not toeing the line can get you arrested…or executed.

I find it amusing that you use words like conflagration and yet dont know basic English grammar and punctuation rules and your sentences and paragraphs resemble those of a bad high school student.

Conflagration should be quoted, viz., “conflagration.”

There should be a comma after the word “conflagration.”

You wrote “dont.” The word you want is “don’t.”

There should be a period after the words “punctuation rules,” and then you need to start a new sentence, omitting the word “and.”

“bad high school student” isn’t correct, because you are using a compound modifier. It should be as follows: “bad high-school student.” (Note the necessary hyphen.)

Other than those five errors … :laughing: :laughing:

Not only that but he doesn’t strike me as a nice guy at all.

Now, that might not be immoral, of course, but some no doubt will insist that it ought to be. :sunglasses:

Haha all these grammar corrections are pulled out of your arse hahaha you two are funny lol dumb and dumber, nutter and nuttier… and even if I made these supposed mistakes, you are missing the point completely…

And getting less nicer and nicer all the time. If only I was a fulminating fanatic objectivist and could merely insist that he is being immoral here.

Or, as some might insist, is committing a mortal Sin and is going straight to Hell. [-o<

bro the shit you say makes zero sense, you accused satire from shitthyself of running like a chickenshit…here i am…define dasein and stop being a chickenshit bro…

Please don’t call members dumb and dumber.

iambiguous, let me explain something to you:

Morality comes from preference. From primordial desire.

When this happens, it is like systemizing, memory, comparison, etc.
Morality was the side effect of passions.
Morals came from evolution.

Morality has to be qualified and when qualified as something that is an individual characteristic, it needs to be qualified further, and then it is not something that ‘IS’ because we are not speaking of something scientific, measurable by a scientific method, and definable concretely but a philosophical problem. You cant use words like morality or dasein or nature or evolution and not specify what you meant by them exactly. Another thing…with all the kooks giving their own definitions of dasein…without one snippet of reference to Heidegger(who invented, defined the word and the concept)…just insane dullards…shows who is who…if you are giving some other definition with minimal reference to Heidegger’s definition then you are either not understanding Heidegger who you claim to understand or are so insane, you take concepts of other people and modify them freely for some bizarre reason as if it helped anybody and did not make you look like a confused and pretentious clown. dasein is WHAT Heidegger defined it to be because he is the sole inventor of the word(he is not actually because he stole it and re-made it but ok…) and the concept and it is neither a common-place word or a popular philosophical/scientific concept that is arguable.

Nonsensical garbage that makes no sense. He is writing about dasein as if he has no clue what it is himself and is second-guessing a term he cant even define in the first place…dasein isn’t this, it isn’t that…its relation is this but it isn’t that…what the fuck is this shit even about???
plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/#BeiWor
in this article, dasein is quoted almost 300 times AND YET…NO DEFINITIVE DEFINITION OF WHAT DASEIN IS, IS ACTUALLY PROVIDED!!!…go figure…ridiculous…

Re-wrote it without mumbling and pretentious charlatan-speak:

6 sentences, 5 daseins, 6 beings = no definition of being-in or dasein in a passage meant to DEFINE being…

:smiley: