-->
@Tarik
Yes, well we've already talked at length on the subject, as I recall.
Necessary evils
Posts
Total:
691
-->
@Tarik
just because you believe in a code of conduct that doesn’t make your code moralWhat standard would you compare and contrast a specific code-of-conduct with in order to determine its "morality-coefficient"?That’s a separate narrative that I don’t care to get into right now.
QUANTIFYING MORALITY IS THE FUNDAMENTAL CORE OF THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION.
-->
@Lemming
hence why I like calling myself a nihilist.
A true nihilist would never communicate with anyone.
-->
@3RU7AL
If a heterosexual slept with a member of the same sex,
Would they be a 'true heterosexual?
Perhaps not, but it's still a handy label.
Maybe It'd be better to call myself an Absurdist or something, I don't 'perfectly recall my reasoning for liking the Nihilist label, perhaps it's identifying more with the intellectual conclusion than the method of 'living, perhaps it's bitterness.
I'd have to rack my brain and memory to remember why, and then either re-justify it in the now, or discard it in the now.
And I've already 'just done that for my opinion on the American 2nd Amendment.
Re-Justified the 2nd Amendment that is. . . 'To myself, course not everyone shares the same opinion, and people who disagree do make some decent points.
But anyway, just a label I like.
-->
@Lemming
If a heterosexual slept with a member of the same sex,Would they be a 'true heterosexual?Perhaps not, but it's still a handy label.
Yes- yes you would still be a heterosexual - who you sleep with has NOTHING to do with your sexual orientation. Now - you could technically be engaging in homosexuality, but unless you were attracted to that member of the same sex you would not be a homosexual. The gate-keeping rhetoric here is gross.
To conclude: Being homo or hetero-sexual has to do with whether or not you are ATTRACTED to people of the same or different gender - engaging in sexual activity with the same or different sex is an action which is either hetero or homo-sexuality - just like a good person can do a bad thing - or a person who is skilled at something can do a dumb thing. There is the act of sexuality and the identity of sexuality.
-->
@Lemming
Nihilism has a nice ring to it and it does evoke a certain response from most individuals.
I'm merely pointing out that (IFF) you really didn't care about anything (THEN) you most certainly wouldn't do anything
-->
@Lemming
Yet you still don’t get it.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Gate-keeping rhetoric?
-->
@3RU7AL
QUANTIFYING MORALITY IS THE FUNDAMENTAL CORE OF THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION.
That’s assuming morality can be quantified.
-->
@3RU7AL
Suppose I called myself more specifically,
A moral nihilist?
Or said I was possessing a degree of Immorality / Amorality, due to an intellectual conclusion regarding the concepts of objective and subjective morality?
-->
@Lemming
"True heterosexual"
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't know what Gate-keeping rhetoric 'means.
-->
@Lemming
Suppose I called myself more specifically,A moral nihilist?Or said I was possessing a degree of Immorality / Amorality, due to an intellectual conclusion regarding the concepts of objective and subjective morality?
Ok, so more of a "sociopath"?
-->
@3RU7AL
Quick Google of the word sociopath gives me, a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
Well, I wouldn't say I've ever manifested extremely antisocial attitudes.
Prefer keeping to myself, introverted, but I wouldn't call that 'extreme.
Profitable to follow the law, play nice with others.
Profitable both in money and my preference to usually be pleasant.
I have 'a conscience, though I can't say I've ever 'rigorously tested it.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Lemming
As in rhetoric which precludes people from a group because of some standard - so let's say a gay guy was raped by a girl, or a gay girl was raped by a gay - by your logic they wouldn't be "true homosexuals" because they'd gone through sexual intercourse with a person who was the opposite gender. Or, to bring it to a less extreme example, if someone feels confused by their sexuality and explores different relationships - they wouldn't be a "true" heterosexual or homosexual
-->
@Theweakeredge
And when you say
The gate-keeping rhetoric 'here is gross.
Do you mean my example or the Nihilist label/definition I was responding to?
Sorry about being slow
Still not sure if your post original post was 'agreeing with me or 'disagreeing with me.
-->
@Tarik
does having emotions make you irrational
No. Humans are neither rational nor irrational they are human and so capable of both. Emotions ARE NOT rational however. In fact they are anethema.
You seem to want only black and white answers even though that leads to the black and white fallacy.
Humans are no COMPLETELY RATIONAL because humans are COMPLICATED.
-->
@3RU7AL
There are an number of characters, by authors,
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Jack London
Charles Dickens
That involve a stripping away of former isms, as well as deviations due to realizations.
I wouldn't say I've deviated in deed, hasn't been a need yet.
-->
@Lemming
and a lack of conscience
Of course this is difficult to quantify.
But you claim to have a conscience.
Doesn't your conscience tell you "right" from "wrong"?
Iff you have a functioning conscience, can you still be a "moral nihilist"?
-->
@secularmerlin
does having emotions make you irrationalNo. Humans are neither rational nor irrational they are human and so capable of both. Emotions ARE NOT rational however. In fact they are anethema.You seem to want only black and white answers even though that leads to the black and white fallacy.Humans are no COMPLETELY RATIONAL because humans are COMPLICATED.
Strangely the words "rational" and "logical" are functionally indistinguishable according to the dictionary.
Are emotions logical?
Well, they are certainly subject to the laws of cause and effect, so they'd pretty much have to be logical.
Do emotions sometimes cause a person to act in "unpredictable" ways?
Well, it might seem like they do, but actually acting emotionally is often even more predictable than acting "rationally".
Do emotions sometimes cause a person to do things counterproductive to their STATED "conscious" intentions?
YES. Almost always.
-->
@Lemming
No - I meant about your example of heterosexuals - that is what I have been responding to the entire time - that is what I quoted the entire time - I honestly don't care about the nihilist thing - have I even mentioned it until now? No - No i have not.
-->
@secularmerlin
Emotions ARE NOT rational however.
Well that’s what I asked you dumbass, anyway the rest is all still the same.
-->
@3RU7AL
My conscience is a mental knee jerking to stimuli, based upon my aesthetic principles and past.
I don't see why not.
If I reject the notion that certain moral laws 'must be followed.
I I reject such laws because I doubt their objectivity as illusion,
Then what is this but moral nihilism,
That I am human and continue on my way does not change the negation.
-->
@Lemming
My conscience is a mental knee jerking to stimuli, based upon my aesthetic principles and past.
This assessment likely applies to every individual conscience.
You seem to at least tacitly accept "social norms" and a rough "moral code" if only for purely practical reasons.
-->
@3RU7AL
I accept that groups of humans tend to have shared ideas, habits, responses.
-->
@Tarik
Emotions ARE NOT rational however.Well that’s what I asked you
No. It is not. You asked if people are rational.
Try again.
-->
@secularmerlin
So where does emotions fit into that? Because I know for a fact I asked about emotions. Don’t play games with me.
-->
@Tarik
A humans still going to prefer certain moral systems, due to nature and nurture.Not nihilists by definition.
Then NO HUMANS are nihilists. It is therefore a nonsense term.
-->
@secularmerlin
To quote you how about you actually engage in our current dialogue before you worry about a conversation that doesn’t concern you.
-->
@Tarik
Put simply your morals are based on your emotions. If that means you can't have a rational discussion about morality then there you go do you go ahead and answer your own question.
I can definitely have a rational discussion about morals specifically because I realise thatit is am emotion. This way I can recognize and guard against the appeal to emotion logical fallacy.