There is no way to do that because objectivity has no subject and no context to discern it. There is no logic that can be employed to observe objectively because whatās observed will always be subject to the chosen logic.
Oh, so youāre saying the objective bit are the facts, but facts are consensus of opinion. Thatās the āearth is roundā idea that we already determined was subjective long ago.
But the fact that murder is considered wrong at all is an objective claim because there is no path of reasoning to arrive at that conclusion, and if there is, then the wrongness will be subject to that reasoning which means the wrongness is not objective.
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 itās 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 isnāt going to effect change where the species is a torturing homicide machine. So they just donāt 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 itās 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 āsinlessā body.
It really doesnāt 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 youāll 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 wouldnāt bother, because the judges and jury are criminally insane, but I know how to prove it.
I wanted to add, that MagsJās 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. Thatās a species fact.
All humans on this earth, including the Jesus story (though it wasnāt 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 incontrovertibleā¦
You can actually have the types of rapists that MagsJ acknowledges come to terms with their acting out, by pointing out everyone elseās hypocrisy ā¦ from there they can rationalize their old behavior and stop projecting it onto others, remove that anger and rage and move on.
Thereās 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 womanās hunk will be an āewā to another woman.
For example: be a man in any culture, even Islamic onesā¦ 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 thisā¦ are the men scared? No!!
Not a chance!!
The difference between a culture like ours and theirs (islamists) is that our culture doesnāt interpret female sexually signaling as necessary consent.
The comfort/discomfort ratios are cross cultural howeverā¦ women relative to men.
I still donāt 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 āno means yesā operator.
Iām not making the normal feminist argument that all sex is rapeā¦ of which there are two luminaries for that, Iām using a different argument that makes it POSSIBLE that sex isnāt rape.
I didnāt think of it at the time, but thatās another super-obvious reason MagsJ should not have censored me. Itās 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 youāre coming from. It was the āall sex is rapeā 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 Iām confused again lol, but thatās ok because Iām sure you have it conceptualized somehow that makes sense to you, but I canāt see it mainly because I donāt want to put the effort into finding yet more ways people are exploiting each other, especially if itās that complicated to explain. I suspect KT will have lots of fun with this in the morning lol
I donāt know what to say about Mags except that she doesnāt talk enough for me to formulate an impression, but she seems cool from what I can tell. Are you sure you didnāt go overboard?
