Total posts: 323
-->
@Tarik
It’s more than just a problem, it’s enough to cause reasonable doubt. The simple fact that your view of morality contradicts itself is enough to come to the conclusion that it’s nonexistent. Judging by your definition of morality one can have no logical concept of fairness leaving no choice but impartiality. The only way morality makes sense is if it’s objective.
I'm not arguing that subjective morality is consistent. I'm arguing that there is no objective morality.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
When you learn the difference between gender and race let me know, bigot.
I've learned it.
Just letting you know.
Bigot.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
So how does an impartial judge fairness if the definition is inconsistent, inconsistency doesn’t make much sense.
Yeah I agree that it's a problem. It's compounded by the fact that it's impossible to be impartial.
People could come together to discuss some kind of intersubjective standard, perhaps judging people's morality based on the utility. Maybe they could take an average of the combined moral feelings of people. That's not consistent per say, but it's more consistent than a random person's morality.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
So do you regard someone as immoral that doesn’t share the same feelings as you pertaining to murder?
No because I don't believe morality is objective.
They have a different feeling of morality, but even then one feeling could generate superior utility to the other, so it's more intersubjective in that regard.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Actually, it was people who identify as forklifts.
Did you just assume the gender identity of my parents?
Now who is the bigot, bigot?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No one's debating your bigotry, it's a statement.
Who hurt you?
There's half a chance it was a black man.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Just what the site needs, another bigot atheist.
Yeah, my bigoted Atheism makes Black men commit more crimes.
Looks like I lost another debate :(
Created:
-->
@Tarik
The music isn't doing the judging. The feeling of the music isn't judging. It's people's innate sense of fairness is judging the music.
You have musical "feelings" and then that is judged.
Music --> I hear music (musical "feelings") -- > That sounds good/bad (innate fairness judgement)
They are different types of feelings, despite both being feelings.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Okay, but how often have we seen arguments pertaining to music? Clearly some people feel that talent isn’t being judged fairly.
Yeah so that would pertain to the morality involving specific judgements of music, not the music generating morality.
Those people are judging whether the music has been fairly judged, not whether the music is fairly judging.
Created:
Also consider the fact that corporations prefer equalist rhetoric (wider target market), governments like to keep peace (any ethnonationalist rhetoric will invoke hard feelings and eventually violence) and that the zealot anti-racists engage in social status games (i.e. self-worth) over being non-racist, and you can see a bunch of important people who have a vested interest in you not talking about this fact. They'd much rather you talk about slavery, lead poisoning, red-lining etc. all in isolation so that you feel sorry for Black people FIRST (and call you a racist if you try to question any of those narratives), in order for you to be hooked on the Black oppression narrative, so that any questions about Black people committing more crimes makes you feel morally corrupt (i.e. a "racist" -- a low status, repugnant individual). That sequencing is much better for them than you immediately starting with the dispassionate 'why are Blacks committing more crimes?' question.
[literally the next post]
racists crap like this gets posted and it's considered proper debate
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Okay so define morality, because chalking it up to feelings doesn’t really set it apart from anything (e.g, music).
Morality: an innate sense of fairness.
The distinction from the broader category of "feelings" is that "feelings" don't have to necessarily refer to an innate sense of fairness.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
So do you regard someone as immoral that doesn’t share the same musical feelings as you?
No, I don't.
Created:
-->
@Conservallectual
I'm only an Atheist (not a humanist) but I think it needs to be said: morality is just your feelings. It's an evolutionary advantage to think that they are more than that (i.e. divined by the creator Himself), but they're just evolutionary impulses at the end of the day. Important impulses, sure, but not consistent across groups of people or individuals, and so we're beginning to see that clearly. The theistic notion of objective morality is entering extinction.
Also, humanism is ridiculous. Groups of humans differ genetically to such a degree that treating them all the same is to treat them all poorly. Basic human rights are fine, but universalized doctrine for freedom of speech, immigration, cognitive ability etc. -, especially when you take into account cultural (e.g. religion), is going to make no one happy.
Created:
-->
@Vici
Why do people ignore this? People always ad hoc and say "oh well it's bc of slavery and xyz". Why not just see it as it is - black people commit far more crimes, for whatever reason and this is why they are shot more by the police.
Because once people accept this and divergent evolution in humans, genetics start to become a real possible explanation for Black crime. For all the equalists: multiculturalists, egalitarians, humanists etc. that leads to VERY uncomfortable possibilities which can shatter their worldviews.
Also consider the fact that corporations prefer equalist rhetoric (wider target market), governments like to keep peace (any ethnonationalist rhetoric will invoke hard feelings and eventually violence) and that the zealot anti-racists engage in social status games (i.e. self-worth) over being non-racist, and you can see a bunch of important people who have a vested interest in you not talking about this fact. They'd much rather you talk about slavery, lead poisoning, red-lining etc. all in isolation so that you feel sorry for Black people FIRST (and call you a racist if you try to question any of those narratives), in order for you to be hooked on the Black oppression narrative, so that any questions about Black people committing more crimes makes you feel morally corrupt (i.e. a "racist" -- a low status, repugnant individual). That sequencing is much better for them than you immediately starting with the dispassionate 'why are Blacks committing more crimes?' question.
Thus, it's better to simply ignore the severe discrepancy in Black crime rates than to address it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I'm not a fan of the term "Liberal" because it means too many things (e.g. Classical Liberal, Progressive Liberal, any party named "Liberal" etc.)
Talking about BLM specifically, it's clearly just a racial in-group party designed to further the agenda of Black people. It trends towards Black supremacism, but I don't think it's inherently terroristic by nature. That's not to say there are no terrorists in BLM, but it's just a racial in-group party at the end of the day.
I think Antifa is totally different. It's a group full of ideological zealots who are intent on standing against what they perceive to be fascism. They've been involved in countless violent confrontations and exist purely to combat "fascism". In other words, Antifa needs to actively attack and destroy things in order to meet its goal. I think there is a far better case for calling Antifa terrorists.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
To date I have been permanently suspended from Instagram, Facebook and Twitter directly (and very specifically) due to posting fact-based truth backed by criminological (and other scientific) data that clearly demonstrates that black Americans, namely half of the roughly 6% of black male population in the US do in fact commit over 50% of the entire nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters; and that they are also disproportionately represented among other violent crimes like robberies and rapes. And yet those on the left, brainwashed black Americans, white guilt liberals and democrats deny these truths. They twist and manipulate the news to fit their agenda in order to divide people by race, class and more poignantly by gender/sex.
In the western world, believing in divergent human evolution is currently the original sin. "Racism" is the original sin in humans requiring exorcism. Your social status is tied to how non "racist" you are. Any mention of race (even if purely descriptive) gives these people the green light to attack you because they can score social status points off you. Furthermore, when you post data and crime reports on Black crime, you're attacking these people's essential status hierarchy by saying it's wrong -- that's why you get such a reaction. These ideological zealots cannot have their reality shattered, or else their social status evaporates (similar to how there is no Heaven without the existence of God). Hence, you are the problem that needs correction.
Instafail, facepalm and twatter ban you because you're seen as an advertising risk. A lot of people play the non "racist" social status game when race gets mentioned, of which always leads to flamewars and mess, and hence advertisers don't want to be associated with such controversy. Thus, you get banned.
Blacks and Hispanics en masse vote Democrat. The Democrat Party is smart and understands this, hence it appeals to them. That's the general idea with them.
Nearly every single day there is a video posted online across various social media platforms of some black person acting a fool, and intelligent blacks rip them apart for being just that, acting a fool. Former Officer Brandon Tatum is one of them. Larry Elder. You name it. In fact, I am impressed by the number of black American's who are posting their reactions on YouTube to what they see/hear from Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest scholars of this time, regarding black history across the world; but namely America since he too is an American and wanted to understand the plight of blacks on this side of the planet (North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean).Blacks, like Hispanics, are moving to the right and for good reason. Yet so many try to keep them under the Democratic bootheel.
These Blacks and Hispanics are the minority. Minorities in the USA still vote Democrat, even if there is a shift towards Republican.
Thoughts for discussion?
Yeah: you're not allowed to discuss racial differences with anti-racist zealots, or else you'll receive violent social backlash.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lied about gain of function (the creation of Covid) and lied about his ties to the pharmaceutical industry.It's not just a problem with Fauci, it's a problem with all government scientists being paid to confirm whatever the government pays them to confirm, regardless of the science.
I found a lovely little Freudian slip for you that seals your case:
"We did not fund gain-of-function [interrupted by Senator Rand Paul] Dr Baric does not doing fund gain-of-function research and if it is, it is according to the guidelines and conducted in North Carolina" -- Doctor Fauci
Excuse the dodgy English, but these are his direct words and are a confession. After explicitly denying gain-of-function research for so long, he slips and confesses here. There's no need to go into minutiae. This alone is enough to prove Fauci as a liar and a serious fraud.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You just know once they legalize the selling of lab grown meat, people will be clamoring to eat human flesh.
There's a natural, psychological aversion to that. I don't think this will happen.
Agreed. Plus there is that other problem. If we gave an ant an IQ of 150 and put it in a human body, would it still act like an ant? Post humanism might not happen because it's just going to be humans who are now superior in a lot of distinctly human ways .
Yeah I do worry about this. Transhumanism better not end up being 'I can run faster now' or 'I can kick ball into goal easier now'. Humans need to fully comprehend that Darwinian evolution has a lot of drawbacks (e.g. suffering), even if we are a product of it.
Created:
I think cancelling is almost always wrong and I don't make an exception with Andrew Tate.
The sexual misconduct allegations are lies. He is not in jail. The women involved have all attested to his innocence. It's another case of legacy media destroying someone outside of their locus of control. I have no idea when the public majority is going to stop taking legacy media's word as gospel, but this is another nail in the coffin. Just turn off your tv already.
Still, Andrew got slashed by the sword he swung around. He was fast and loose with his words (e.g. suggesting the money his wife/gf would make on OF would be his alone; saying that depression doesn't exist; the countless times he's referred to himself as "king of the world" or whatever). There were plenty of shock-jock moments that certainly contributed to his downfall.
Nonetheless, I'm mixed on Andrew Tate. He's promoted a lot of healthy things to a largely disillusioned western (young) male audience, but he's certainly thrown women under the bus on many occasions. The overly masculine bravado is irritating, too.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Cellphones act as an extension of our brains, allowing us as individuals to have more processing speed memory and access to information.
It's taken for granted but it's actually a genuinely miraculous transhuman ability. I suppose the next step would be to infuse the phone into a human, and thus make them some kind of search engine algorithmic being.
Prosthetic limbs now make it easier for those born without legs to run faster in the Olympics than people with legs.
True, although being able to run faster doesn't produce anything of real value.
Medicine can now do some crazy things. We can make artificial meat in a man etc.
I wonder if that's ever going to become advanced enough to grow human lungs or hearts.
Transhumanism is the state between human and posthuman, I would say we have come pretty far and as far as evolutionary terms are concerned we are significantly closer to being post human than human.
The neurological re-hardwiring is going to be the hardest hurdle to reach posthumanism, so I'm not convinced that we're all that close to it. I'm not even sure if the CRISPR genome editing is advanced enough (or can become advanced enough) to even attempt lasting edits to DNA that result in neurological re-hardwiring.
I believe what you'll see as far as radical life extension concerned is not some discovery that allows us to live 1000 years or anything like that, but instead a gradual process where slowly technology starts allowing us to add slightly over 1 year of life to life expectancy per year we are alive.Right now it is about 80, next year life expectancy might be 81, the year following maybe some small discovery that takes it to 82. It's what Aubrey DeGrey would prefer to as "escape velocity" if you want to look at any of his ted talks.If we do bump into a technological singularity in our lifetime than radical life extension could happen more rapidly, but barring such an event I think by 2045 we will reach escape velocity.Everyone's goal should be to survive to 2045 in a healthy enough state to take advantage of advances in medicine that will extend our lives.
The immortal jellyfish's infinite life DNA is already a real thing, so there's no question as to whether it's possible. It's definitely harder to implement in humans than little advancements that add a year or two to human life expectancy, but it's currently the holy grail because it's also a complete undoing of aging (something Aubrey would be delighted with).
Still, there's nothing wrong with Aubrey is doing. In fact, he might even be proven correct in his method of approaching this issue, if the technology for reverse-engineering the immortal jellyfish's DNA is centuries or millennia away. If we could hit escape velocity before then (which Ray Kurzweil thinks will happen in no more than 8 years), immortal life DNA might become unrequired.
In any case, the two methods aren't mutually exclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"?
His body is not affected by the fetus; hers is. This misaligns the analogy as she has far more at stake, thus her choice should be weighted more.
It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support?
Whilst I think your analogy misaligns, I also think what you are suggesting here is desirable because it will slow down the birth-rate of unwanted children. Women will become more cautious with who they sleep with (because they don't want to fall pregnant to a deadbeat dad), and thus single mothers and casual sex will begin to evaporate. Children born into wedlock or other official child-rearing arrangements will become more fashionable.
To synthesize, I think women should have majority control over the birth of children (seeing that they have more at stake), yet men should be empowered to opt-out of paying for unwanted children (especially children whom are not his).
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Transhumanism is the current stage of human development. It's too late for it not to happen.
In your eyes, to what extent has transhumanism been realized?
Lifespans you may be correct about. It isn't really about life expectancy though. It is about how much life extension is possible assuming you care enough to attempt it and you have enough resources to do so.Maximum possible lifespan is about 120. I am thinking it will be about 150 within the next 10 years
What makes you think that it will be 150?
Long term, I'm thinking some well-funded Chinese person is going to attempt to reverse-engineer the immortal jellyfish's genetics to allow humans to (theoretically) live forever. They've already grasped gene-editing to some degree He Jiankui affair - Wikipedia . They just need the money and governmental-backing to give this a real shot.
Created: