So, what does he do? The same thing!!! 
Is this for real?
He’s collapsing before our eyes.
Note to Others
No really…
One last time…
Morality - Genetic
Does not require a god.
Is not a human construct.
It is how humans encoded behaviours that facilitated cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
It is group dynamics imposing behavioural rules upon every member that wishes to participate, belong, and gain the survival and reproductive advantage.
Group dynamics are not arbitrary they evolve through the interaction of the group with its environment, as the most efficient/effective method increasing the groups survival and reproductive probabilities.
Moral behaviours are not excusive to homo sapiens, but our species is the only one that encoded them, i.e., converted them into ideas, and represented them with symbols/words that could we written down in books and shared across space/time.
Ethics are manmade addendums to the previous.
Ethics - Memetic
Additional codes of conduct that facilitate the overcoming of group size limitations, such as Dunbar’s Number…
…or overcoming the exclusion of males from reproduction by imposing sexual rules of conduct, i.e., monogamy.
No god necessary. God is how ethical codes were imposed on a species that was not naturally inclined towards their restrictions.
No amorality, because this would immediately exclude you from the group severely reducing survival and reproductive probabilities.
For social species this would mean certain death and its is why being excluded remains so vital to humans, and all-incusicivty is comforting because it makes inclusion almost certain.
Ethical Codes
Ten Commandments. Mosaic Laws.
Ethics are a product of power upon the collective, either contradicting moral behaviours or by making them more strict and exact.
Ethics require an objective, a collective ideal, whereas moral behaviour already has survival and reproduction as its objective.
Every collective’s ideal determines its ethical codes, and in turn determines the type of individuals it will cultivate.
These collectivized idealized types then compete with other collectivized idealized types producing memetic survival of the fittest.
The ideal will not necessarily produce the smartest, strongest, noblest type of man, since simplicity and ignobility may also prove to offer an advantage within fluctuating environmental circumstances.
Just imagine how much fun he must have had paraphrasing Lyssa here.
Har Har Harr!
Or was it phoneutria? 
One last time…
There could be 587 ways to explain how human social behavior has evolved and what function it has served, and not a single one of those explanations would be prescriptive. Nor can they be. At best they describe a truism, and offer nothing in the way of existential guidance for how to live in a world that produces innumerable, novel situations. Therefore, there is very little value to even knowing any of this outside of being able to pass a school science test.
Beware of anyone who tries to take this banal truism and use it as a template to support their own morality and moral values. Fact is, you cannot derive a prescriptive philosophy out of this knowledge alone, and any attempt to will never get pass the naturalistic fallacy.
Add to this, the fact that environments can change so drastically that former ethical behavior patterns become not only useless, but obsolete.
This guy here will believe that by simply being aware of this basic fact of evolution, any morality that he puts forth as ‘proper’ has gained some kind of support, because of that awareness.
He’ll draw and source all kinds of conclusions and ‘oughts’ from this basic evolutionary fact that simply aren’t there.
The deeper form of this rests in the fear of nihilism. That there IS NO purpose, is too much to bear… so one must try to convince oneself that recognizing the mundane process of the evolution of human social behavior should somehow be something significant in general, and evidence of a ‘proper’ way to live, in particular.
Again, I’m not saying the study isn’t interesting. I’m saying no exclusive morality can draw strength from it or defend itself by its merits.
For instance, anything this twit says about ‘the right way to live’ (pick one… Hellenistic timocracy), is absolutely unfounded and can lay no exclusive claim on the facts of evolution concerning the development of social behavior, itself.
In a word, dasein.
Planning a amoral smash & grab shopping spree in the US, before Christmas.
Any recommendations?
I want high end stuff.
Is it below $900 that you aren’t arrested?
Don’t want to get over that.
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
Of course for those like Mr. Fun here [in this festive holiday season] morality is a “natural phenomena”. Not sure what that means? Ask him. Only be prepared for his answer to revolve solely around his at times completely unintelligible intellectual contraptions. Pedantic gibberish predicated on the assumptions that his theoretical constructs are by default the only possible manner in which to grasp, well, anything that we do. And these “serious philosophy” assumptions must be true because the meaning that he gives to the words in these ponderous didactic assessments are “true by definition”.
Not sure what that means? Well, follow him long enough and you’ll know the drill before too long.
In other words, the guy loves – really, really loves – to sound like what he imagines a serious philosopher should sound like. Deep, man, deep.
As for feelings of spiritual awe…? What, like Maia feels in the presence of the Goddess? Still, sooner or later those reverential feelings need to be translated into actual behaviors in actual sets of circumstances.
Fundamentally perhaps but certainly not existentially. The questions are inevitable. Whether you want to call them moral questions or something else. And even the answers are intelligible to the extent that others understand your point. What they do not seem to be however is objectively intelligible. Your answer may be understood by another…but fiercely disputed.
Then what? Then that’s where “I” come in.
Yes, this makes sense. But only to the extent that we acknowledge that none of us seem able to know for certain what actually is inside or outside of the realm of philosophy. Those like Kant may well be ultimately correct. But how exactly to demonstrate this given a particular context.
And what matter might that be?
His posts are like a fly buzzing around your head. Annoying as hell but harmless.
Just like iamretarded’s post for the last ten years.
Finally, self-daignosis.
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
Is this not Wittgenstein’s own attempt to draw our attention to “the gap” and to Rummy’s Rule? It’s just that in regard to such things as moral and political and spiritual convictions, our value judgments are just all that much more ineffable. We have no choice but to come up with a language in which to discuss them because there is no getting around them when “for all practical purposes” actual flesh and blood human being choose to interact socially, politically and economically. We express what is of necessity relationships there is no getting around. But it seems entirely more reasonable to accept the limitations of philosophy here. That those such as ethicists, political scientists, sociologists, economists, psychologists, anthropologists etc., are no less impeded by the existential reality of “I” in the is/ought world.
Actually, I think he is basically concurring that, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. If by “intelligible discourse” one means a rational ethics that all reasonable men and women are obligated to espouse. Until a God, the God, your God is established to in fact actually exist, the “intelligible discourse” can only revolve around a font – a demonstrable font – created by mere mortals.
Though, sure, you might find any number of communities where right makes might prevails. These “shared feelings” about good and bad may be derived from, say, a Manifesto or a political party, or an ideological assessment, or from one or another dogma revolving around “biological imperatives”.
Does that then make Wittgenstein wrong?
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
How could it add anything more than in acknowledging the gap between what we think Wittgenstein meant by one’s “capacity to stand in awe of the universe” and how we might come to a conclusion about that ourselves?
Given a particular context on our own infinitesimally insignificant planet in the staggering vastness of all that the universe is? Given further that this comes from each of us as but one of billions of infinitesimally insignificant individuals who have lived and died on this Third rock from the Sun"?
What it helps us do is to acquire and then sustain a font that allows us in turn to convince ourselves that the behaviors we choose are necessary because this absolute, awe-inspiring virtue does in fact exist. And since it only has to exist “in our head” there is no further demonstration needed to acquire and then sustain the comfort and consolation that allows us to embody the psychology of objectivism.
And here of course it really doesn’t make any difference if others have brought this about or if you do it yourself. All that counts is that you have accomplished it and, if you are lucky enough not to be confronted with the arguments that I make, you may well take this peace of mind to the grave. And for some, even beyond it.
But here of course you have been confronted with the arguments that I make. And they either disturb you or they do not. And, if they don’t, you will either pursue that with me or you won’t.
Ancient Roman, Tacitus, describes ancient Pagan/Heathen Germans and German culture:
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
Yo, Mr. Objectivist! Fulminating fanatically or otherwise. You’re up.
Pick your font. We’ll both pick a context. You to bring me up out of the hole, me to bring you down into it.
Hume and Wittgenstein. Both more or less backing me up and not you. And all I ask here is that I might at least feel challenged by you. 
On the other hand, as we must surely know by now, you don’t have to effectively challenge anyone. All you need do is to convince yourself that your own moral philosophy is the optimal narrative…and not the hundreds and hundreds of other objectivists out there who share your conviction that morality is objective. But that it’s their comforting and consoling spiel and not yours.
What neither Wittgenstein nor anyone else can accomplish is to make the need for one or another moral narrative and political agenda go away. We may not be able to demonstrate the most rational ethical philosophy but we can struggle to perhaps sustain the least dysfunctional ones?
Me, I’m sticking with “moderation, negotiation and compromise” as the least dysfunctional approach to prescribing and proscribing behaviors legally. What that comes down to “for all practical purposes” though is [obviously] beyond anything that a fractured and fragmented frame of mind can come up with.
Ah, that crucial distinction between essential/objective truth in the either/or world and existential/subjective personal opinions in the is/ought world.
Let’s just make that go away by – presto! – merely insisting “in our heads” that everyone is obligated embrace our own personal opinions or they become “retards”.
A homosexual Jew, undermining philosophy by attacking language, and a man who laid the groundwork for Marxism, by another Jew.
Congratulations moron…you picked the wasps nest of depravity to invest your deference upon.
You only offer words…texts…referring to more text…words referring to more words…and you then pretend to attack what?
Who?
Do you even, fuckin’ know what I am saying? Nope…I’m a caricature, an effigy you burn to deal with your castrated feebleness.
You go from circumcised Hebrew to Hebrew.,…Christianity…Marxism…Postmodernism - see Frankfurt School - and Wittgenstein…Ha!!!
A circumcised circle jerk - undermining, denouncing, seducing, bribing, coercing, negating, gossiping, slandering…insidiously destroying…leaving nothing in your wake.
Morality, imbecile is not a word…it is an act…a behaviour, you pathetic imbecilic hypocritical piece of human trash.
An ACT…not a word!!!
An act given a word to symbolize it, to refer to it…
Moron!!
You belong here…not on KTS. There you will fill it, as you did, with crap and faeces…every thread a trash heap…like you.
I will not let you destroy it as you’ve done ILP.
Don’t worry, faggot…I’ll be gone soon…my present to you.
Then you can share this trash with your fellow rats.
Bon apetit…
Ta, Ta,
What can I say?
Sure, if the “Mr. Fun” persona is what it is all about each and every festive holiday season, it’s not to be taken seriously. Or if he is only being ironic and comes here to put on a “show” for us each and every festive holiday. Or, as with ecmandu, it’s an honest to God “condition”. Or, as with Meno/Alan, he is mocking the “up in the clouds intellectual contraption” “serious philosophers” by going up there himself…
But, suppose – just suppose – he really, really does take himself seriously [wants us to take him seriously] and the “if it’s dreck, you must reject” drivel he posts here each and every festive holiday season is actually what he construes philosophy to be!!!
I mean, come on, how fucking dumb would you have to be not to grasp that Biggy is making a complete fool out of you. And has been now for weeks.
Yeah, maybe he actually is intent on leaving us soon. On the other hand, given what ILP has turned into over the past couple of years, what possible difference can that make? The pinheads, Kids, yak yak yakkers and fulminating fanatic objectivists now rule the roost here.
Hell, if I wasn’t taking orders from a godot, the godot, my godot himself, I’d have been long gone.
Patheos
RELIGION LIBRARY
Paganism
ETHICS AND COMMUNITY
Principles of Moral Thought and Action
As with other renditions of the Golden Rule, there are criticisms:
effectiviology.com/golden-rule/ … ily%20true.
From my frame of mind, however, the Golden Rule can only be construed realistically given an account of it out in a particular world, revolving around sets of circumstances understood from the subjective narratives rooted in dasein.
Then the part where those like Maia argue that each Pagan is on his or her own unique path to and from nature. And thus it is the case that each individual Pagan can come to embrace moral convictions that are entirely conflicting. For the life of me though I can’t understand how, in a community of Pagans, that cannot lead to endless disputes, squabbles, discord, antagonisms…even antipathy.
Here is one attempt to explain it: bishopinthegrove.com/how-do- … mmunities/
Unfortunately, to me, it is just another “general description spiritual assessment” that doesn’t really get down to the sort of existential conflicts that would arise in any community. And it certainly steers clear of the arguments that I make.
But [for me] the biggest mystery remains: how exactly does nature and Maia, along with other Pagans, come to acquire this “spiritual”/“moral”…guidance? By, in my view, not really spending a whole lot of time thinking it through. They just take their own more or less blind leap of faith like all the other religious folks do.
I react much the same to No God spiritual paths like Buddhism. Or to spiritual paths rooted in pantheism. Those who believe, what, that their spirit is somehow “at one with the universe”?
Is it all the equivalent then of a moral or an immoral soul?
With religions predicated on a God, the God, my God, morality is so much easier to grasp. It is Scripted in The Book.
“Thou shalt not…”
But with Pagans “thou shalt do or not do…”, well, whatever it is you happen to think yourself into believing your own “thing” with nature is.
And, as with all the many, many other “one true paths” there are to choose from, the bottom line [mine] is always the same. Not what you believe but that whatever it is you do believe comforts and consoles you all the way to the grave.
This is another aspect of human morality that is almost never not complex and convoluted. Whether the discussion revolves around war or gender roles or sexuality, who gets to decide which behaviors cause no harm [or the least harm] to others.
Aside from the military industry complex and the war economy, the Vietnam War revolved precisely around those who believed that Communism does result in enormous harm done to others. Just as the Communists believe that capitalism results in enormous harm done to others.
So, how do Pagans like Maia and others come to acquire a set of moral convictions in regard to conflicting goods of this sort?
Then that [to me] truly “mystical” component whereby a clearly amoral nature manages – re ritual and and ceremony and custom etc. – to “communicate” a moral path to each individual Pagan that is exclusively their own.
Patheos
RELIGION LIBRARY
Paganism
ETHICS AND COMMUNITY
Principles of Moral Thought and Action
Okay, but you can see its appeal. It basically becomes just another religious path.
Thus…
“The Wiccan Rede is a statement that provides the key moral system in the neopagan religion of Wicca and certain other related witchcraft-based faith.” wiki
A statement not spread through a Bible perhaps but, really, how far removed from that can it be in “spreading the word”?
Though I can see why those like Maia might pull back from it. Too close to the sort of spiritual objectivism that can obligate someone to toe the line…or else. For Maia everything can revolve around her own personal experience with nature. It’s all her own nature so it is largely moot if others question it…or challenge her regarding it.
In an ironic sense it is not all that far removed from moral nihilism itself. Only for “I” it’s not a fractured and fragmented sense of reality but just the opposite. A “spiritual” whole that only has to be understood by you.
Just what one would expect. The “great myths and legends”, the “traditions” embedded in the culture that you were indoctrinated as a child to embody. The world you have always been a part of. A frame of mind that you are not likely to question in depth because it has always been a part of your reality.
Which is why the modern world begetting the postmodern world makes it all that much more problematic…trickier. Today you can be exposed to many, many other culture myths, legends and traditions. All around you [on the internet for example] you are exposed to others who re dasein think about morality in ways that would never even occur to you. Why? Because your own culture and personal experiences would never have predisposed you to think and feel that way.
So, communication often breaks down in places like this because, well, what would you expect?
Whit Gan Stein understood
Don’t you think it’s weird that the Golden Rule can be found (is found by) every one of those “myths”?
What if a myth turns out to be true? Does it break a law of nature? Do you believe in unbreakable laws?
That’s interesting. Do you have evidence for that assertion?
What particular myth pertaining to what particular set of circumstances?
And then given criticisms of the Golden Rule: effectiviology.com/golden-rule/
Clearly, those in different cultures will want to be treated in ways that those in other cultures might be appalled by.
And then when it percolates down to individual likes and dislikes…?
Again, what particular myth in what particular context did you have in mind? What particular law of nature? Unbreakable in what sense?
What assertion?
Wow. Got that down to an art, have you?
This would be very entertaining in a live debate. This must happen.