Master Lawbringer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:
I never changed the premise. Please try to understand the argument first.

The fact that you claim nobody understands your argument is diagnostic of nothing other than of how much you believe that you have made an "argument". Your tactic is to demand that somebody refute your argument, but before that, demand that it be "understood". This is as common as dirt with nutty internet theories.

Claiming that being placed inside a brazen bull and roasted alive isn't inherently a bad thing is crazier. Like said, you outrank me on the insanity scale.

Except I'm not fearful that anyone is going to torture me. Suppose one felt, with or without evidence, that they were subject to being institutionalized on the insanity scale, and that this would feel like torture. If the feeling were accurate, then it wouldn't be additionally insane to believe it. If it could be denied, why would one be fearful? Get my drift, there, champ?

Your reasons for keeping this completely abstract are not lost on me.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Love is the Law.

Unification in Extasy.

Lilith wants division (diversity) in rot (care).

I also called it scaphism of the species.

I call it 'you're probably in the wrong place'.

Moral judgements are based on what feels good or bad.
I never claimed anywhere that it's as simple as saying what feels bad is morally bad.
I mentioned punishment and sacrifice as examples.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Moral judgements are based on what feels good or bad.
I never claimed anywhere that it's as simple as saying what feels bad is morally bad.
I mentioned punishment and sacrifice as examples.

Master Lawbringer wrote:No, my argument is that moral judgements carry the danger

No. That's your assertion. You imagine that this is the argument. This is a misunderstanding of what the word "argument" is going to reference in a context such as this. Maybe your English isn't as good as you seem to think it is. If so, this is all just a big misunderstanding on your part.

Lilith eh?

Master Lawbringer wrote:How to make life as pleasurable as possible?

Not by spending every waking hour trying to theorize about how to make life as pleasurable as possible. This practice appears to be making you miserable, to the extent of judging people to outrank you on the insanity scale. Fuck off with that.

tuco wrote:Lilith eh?

Fair enough.

I'm here repeating the examples where I explain that even though moral judgements are based on what feels good or bad, it's not as simple as saying feeling bad is always morally bad.

If you keep using that, I legitimately call strawman.

Punishment :

In the hopefully very rare case that it would be morally justified to actually put a real person inside a brazen bull, it would _still_ be bad for the person inside the bull.

Sacrifice :

Maybe someone gives you a sadistic choice : Either you inside the brazen bull, or your child. In that case it would be morally righteous to get in the brazen bull yourself.
But that doesn't mean that you're going to enjoy being there.
And in all moral considerations the one self-evident truth remains : You don't want to be inside the brazen bull if you can help it.

Master Lawbringer wrote:
I never claimed anywhere that it's as simple as saying what feels bad is morally bad.

I've just quoted you saying literally exactly that.

Spearthrower wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:
I never changed the premise. Please try to understand the argument first.

The fact that you claim nobody understands your argument is diagnostic of nothing other than of how much you believe that you have made an "argument". Your tactic is to demand that somebody refute your argument, but before that, demand that it be "understood". This is as common as dirt with nutty internet theories.

Claiming that being placed inside a brazen bull and roasted alive isn't inherently a bad thing is crazier. Like said, you outrank me on the insanity scale.

Who decides that?

You?

So you're the arbiter of insanity now?

You only just arrived and you seem to think you can decree everything.

And I thought you didn't like strawmanning? Where did Cito say anything about being inside a brazen bull being good?

I really shouldn't call it crazy because that's too mind-like, and this is deeper, more basic.
I should call it a disease.
But it's worse ...

Master Lawbringer wrote:
In the hopefully very rare case that it would be morally justified to actually put a real person inside a brazen bull, it would _still_ be bad for the person inside the bull.

This brazen bull business is only something that somebody imagined -- you have not demonstrated otherwise. How is anything that theoretical a useful exercise in moral judgement? I do understand how it's possible to outrank someone on the insanity scale by getting a little too theoretical.

Spearthrower wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:
I never claimed anywhere that it's as simple as saying what feels bad is morally bad.

I've just quoted you saying literally exactly that.

No, you didn't. You misintepreted what I meant with 'based on'. You think it means I equate them when I don't.

Master Lawbringer wrote:...it's not as simple as saying feeling bad is always morally bad.

Yes, that's what several people spent several pages telling you.

You disagreed repeatedly, then you did a 180, now you're trying to use the same assertive tone you used previously.

Master Lawbringer wrote:If you keep using that, I legitimately call strawman.

No, you illegitimately call 'strawman' because tossing out a label doesn't serve as a distraction on this forum.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Punishment :

In the hopefully very rare case that it would be morally justified to actually put a real person inside a brazen bull, it would _still_ be bad for the person inside the bull.

And what if it was good for the entire remainder of the population?

Oops.

Master Lawbringer wrote:Sacrifice :

Maybe someone gives you a sadistic choice : Either you inside the brazen bull, or your child. In that case it would be morally righteous to get in the brazen bull yourself.
But that doesn't mean that you're going to enjoy being there.
/quote]

So you managed to conceive of an example that contradicts your own position. But no doubt you still want to maintain that position.

Master Lawbringer wrote:And in all moral considerations the one self-evident truth remains : You don't want to be inside the brazen bull if you can help it.

You keep using that phrase: I do not think it means what you think it means

Your notion of 'self-evident' appears to revolve around you begging the question; your premises assume the truth of the conclusion but don't justify that conclusion.

So once again, given that you've failed to convince anyone here, and assuming that you're trying to convince people here, what do you plan to do next? If you plan to keep repeating yourself, then I'd recommend saving yourself the time. What you would actually need to do is go back and start setting out your premises and seeing if they are justified and whether people will accept them.

Master Lawbringer wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

The fact that you claim nobody understands your argument is diagnostic of nothing other than of how much you believe that you have made an "argument". Your tactic is to demand that somebody refute your argument, but before that, demand that it be "understood". This is as common as dirt with nutty internet theories.

Claiming that being placed inside a brazen bull and roasted alive isn't inherently a bad thing is crazier. Like said, you outrank me on the insanity scale.

Who decides that?

You?

So you're the arbiter of insanity now?

You only just arrived and you seem to think you can decree everything.

And I thought you didn't like strawmanning? Where did Cito say anything about being inside a brazen bull being good?

I really shouldn't call it crazy because that's too mind-like, and this is deeper, more basic.
I should call it a disease.
But it's worse ...

Sorry, do you want to be a bit clearer here.

Are you trying to say I am diseased?

Perhaps you can spell it out clearly so there's no mistake in your intended meaning.

tuco wrote:Rape is bad because it's against the law and the rationale behind the law is that people do not want to be raped, some people don't want other people to be raped, because it feels bad and because it can have let's say other unwanted consequences. This is not Nietzsche, right?

You got it wrong, it was made illegal because it's bad. blind legalism is the way to oppressive totalitarian states like China.

Master Lawbringer wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:
I never claimed anywhere that it's as simple as saying what feels bad is morally bad.

I've just quoted you saying literally exactly that.

No, you didn't. You misintepreted what I meant with 'based on'. You think it means I equate them when I don't.

I just quoted you saying literally exactly that, so if I've "misinterpreted" it then the onus is absolutely on you to be a lot clearer in the presentation of your ideas because I am not the only one who has "misinterpreted" it. Of course, it is most likely because you're horribly confused which is why your ideas are so incoherent and contradictory.

Alternatively, neither myself nor the other people here really did "misinterpret" anything - you just went from absolute certain conviction of a bad idea to stating the opposite with exactly the same absolutely certain conviction, unaware that you did so, and unable to notice that your confidence is massively outstripping your ability.

Master Lawbringer wrote:I'm here repeating the examples where I explain that even though moral judgements are based on what feels good or bad, it's not as simple as saying feeling bad is always morally bad.

If you keep using that, I legitimately call strawman.

Punishment :

In the hopefully very rare case that it would be morally justified to actually put a real person inside a brazen bull, it would _still_ be bad for the person inside the bull.

Sacrifice :

Maybe someone gives you a sadistic choice : Either you inside the brazen bull, or your child. In that case it would be morally righteous to get in the brazen bull yourself.
But that doesn't mean that you're going to enjoy being there.
And in all moral considerations the one self-evident truth remains : You don't want to be inside the brazen bull if you can help it.

Given how often you make this bullshit equivocation between bad=immoral, and bad=unpleasant, I don't think you are capable of making your argument without it. Prove me wrong: eliminate "bad" from your vocabulary for the duration of this thread.

Right: I called it in the 6th post of this thread, and our chap here ignored that post.

Spearthrower wrote:
This is lazy equivocation.

You've hopped from using 'good' in a sense to mean a victim, or possibly 'morally good' in the first setup, then in the second you've completely changed the meaning of the word to align to a definition of good and bad as descriptions of how someone feels about the situation.

This is specious reasoning - it means you're running ahead of yourself and not noticing that your arguments are pointed somewhere you want to get to, but you still have to show the logical pathway otherwise you might as well not have these predicates set out.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:
In the hopefully very rare case that it would be morally justified to actually put a real person inside a brazen bull, it would _still_ be bad for the person inside the bull.

This brazen bull business is only something that somebody imagined -- you have not demonstrated otherwise. How is anything that theoretical a useful exercise in moral judgement? I do understand how it's possible to outrank someone on the insanity scale by getting a little too theoretical.

The argument doesn't change when considering other means of torture.

The brazen bull however is explicitly sadistic. This reverses your notion of love and makes the problem apparent.

Spearthrower wrote:our chap here ignored that post.

He must have had his reasons. You won't see them, though.