Concerning the limit of inequality

Morality, History, Occultism, Nietzsche

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#181  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 23, 2020 11:20 am

Master Lawbringer wrote:
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.


So you say. If you want to argue that torture is immoral, just fucking do that. Otherwise, fuck right off. Keep this in mind, though: Arguments that torture is immoral have not stopped torture. There must be something wrong with the methodology of arguing.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Mar 23, 2020 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 30179
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#182  Postby tuco » Mar 23, 2020 11:20 am

Svartalf wrote:
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.


No, I did not get it wrong. This is what I was replying to:

Master Lawbringer wrote:Rape is bad because it makes the other person feel bad and that's also the rationale behind upholding that law.
You think otherwise? Indulge me with some degenerated zombie logic.


And no it was not made illegal because its bad, it was made illegal for the reasons stated, because people don't want to be raped, just like people dont want to be robbed or put into a bronze bull.
Last edited by tuco on Mar 23, 2020 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
tuco
 
Posts: 15881

Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#183  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 23, 2020 11:21 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:our chap here ignored that post.


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


Image
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31175
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#184  Postby Master Lawbringer » Mar 23, 2020 11:22 am

OlivierK wrote:
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.


The very fact that good and bad, pleasure and pain, etc. are confusing merely proves my point that they are related.
Mere wordgames don't change that.
User avatar
Master Lawbringer
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 65

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#185  Postby Fallible » Mar 23, 2020 11:22 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
tuco wrote:Lilith eh?


Fair enough.


Why are you editing so much? This is the third iteration, and you may just as well have put ‘nvm’ and left it at that. You’re not adding a thing with any of the iterations.

Mind you, this thread is a whole load of nothing to begin with, so whatever, I suppose. Captain Barmpot or whatever he calls himself has only succeeded in demonstrating over and over that he couldn’t, as they say, pour piss out of a shoe with the instructions written on the heel. He’s a goner, he just doesn’t know it yet. Now the next phase (incoherent ranting) is beginning. Gosh, I wonder how that will turn out.
Last edited by Fallible on Mar 23, 2020 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#186  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 23, 2020 11:22 am

Master Lawbringer wrote:
The very fact that good and bad, pleasure and pain, etc. are confusing merely proves my point that they are related.
Mere wordgames don't change that.



He says playing word games.

No one else is confused: only you.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31175
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#187  Postby OlivierK » Mar 23, 2020 11:25 am

Master Lawbringer wrote:
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.

Clearly it doesn't make the problem apparent, as it's not apparent to anyone that there's a problem with treating torture as immoral. Your interpretation of the victim's pain as "bad", and thus (via false equivocation) immoral is not reversing anyone's notion of love, it's just making them say "What piss poor sophistry Master Lawbringer is chundering onto this forum." and wondering whether you're trolling, or whether you really are too dense to realise the problems with what you call your argument.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9865
Age: 55
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#188  Postby OlivierK » Mar 23, 2020 11:29 am

Master Lawbringer wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
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.

The very fact that good and bad, pleasure and pain, etc. are confusing merely proves my point that they are related.
Mere wordgames don't change that.

No, they don't. And yet your argument transparently depends on them. Too bad.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9865
Age: 55
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#189  Postby Master Lawbringer » Mar 23, 2020 11:32 am

Spearthrower wrote:
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.


No, you didn't. I never equate them. I have always said : 'based on'. Not : They are the same.
That whole equivocation argument is simply false. It's an oversimplification, hence a strawman.
User avatar
Master Lawbringer
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 65

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#190  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 23, 2020 11:33 am

Master Lawbringer wrote:This reverses your notion of love and makes the problem apparent.


You don't know anything about my notion of love, yet. Don't assume it's anything like yours, which is purely theoretical, and will never do anyone any good.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 30179
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#191  Postby Fallible » Mar 23, 2020 11:34 am

Both Ikea floor layouts and astrophysics are confusing. This must mean that they are related.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#192  Postby OlivierK » Mar 23, 2020 11:42 am

If there's not equivocation, the "the torturer is immoral" and "the victim feels bad" are not in any sort of conflict.

So when we then revisit your original post we find ...
Master Lawbringer wrote:Most people will judge the situation as follows :

The person outside of the bull is considered 'evil'. He is obviously sadistic.
The person inside of the bull is considered the victim, hence 'good'.

But there is another perspective on this, lurking in the background, which the egalitarian judgement must also acknowledge :

The person outside of the bull is fine. He might actually be enjoying himself.
The person inside of the bull is in complete agony. Very bad indeed.

It's not a complete reversal of good into bad, and bad into good, but it's getting there, it seems.

... that this does not seem like any reversal at all. If a positive moral judgement is not equivocated with feeling good or a negative moral judgement is not equivocated with being in agony, then the second perspective is simply irrelevant, as it has nothing to say about morality at all without the equivocations you now assure us are absent.

The most charitable you could be is that since there's not equivocation, but feelings are just one of the factors taken into account when forming moral judgements, that the second perspective is exactly the same as the first: the torturer's enjoyment of causing harm is immoral, consistent with the immorality of causing the harm itself, and the victim is, as before, morally neutral but unfortunate.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9865
Age: 55
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#193  Postby Doubtdispelled » Mar 23, 2020 12:10 pm

Master Lawbringer wrote:
It's a hoax, a hoax by a Daemon.

Please read Liber 418, The Cry of the 3rd Aethyr, and understand that Lilith is the name of this Daemon. Understand that Lilith is this society's notion of 'care'.

AL II 27 27 :

There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason.


Ah. Seeking entertainment to help me forget the fact that my son's newly aquired pub, where he could show off his cooking craft to his heart's delight, and where I found daily entertainment making the place clean and pleasant with plants, flowers, cushions etc.., has been closed down by government decree, I wandered in here confident that there would be something of interest to distract me. And here it is. Apart from reading a comment on the linked skeptics thread which said that the banned member was a promoter of paedophilia, as I read on (some superb comments and counter arguments by our long standing members, btw) I found myself wondering how long it would take for it to descend into misogyny.

Yes, yes, you will all cry, but you've long been paranoid about that subject...

So there it is. Lilith is the name of this Daemon.

And Lilith, a black monkey crawling with filth, running with open sores, an eye torn out, eaten of worms, her teeth rotten, her nose eaten away, her mouth a putrid mass of green slime, her dugs dropping and cancerous, clings to him, kisses him. ....

She it is that squatteth upon the Crucifix, for the nastiness of her pleasure. So that they that worship Christ suck up her filth upon their tongues, and therefore their breaths stink.....

To another, "lovely shape that concealeth a black monkey, even as a figure that draweth with her hands small images of men down into hell"


Master Lawbringer, whilst I have some little sympathy for you that perhaps something has happened in your life to cause this hatred and fear of women, I would like to point out that there are no demons, or daemons, as you would have it, only those that are in our own heads, and that perhaps you have more than most other people.

And thank you for the entertainment.

Here endeth this post.

Lilith.
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#194  Postby tuco » Mar 23, 2020 12:18 pm

lol
tuco
 
Posts: 15881

Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#195  Postby chairman bill » Mar 23, 2020 12:46 pm

Bugger. Too much has happened here for me to properly engage, but the illogic in the OP is palpable nonetheless. Wow. Verbal sparring with purveyors of supernaturalist mumbo-jumbo on Facebook just pales into insignificance compared to this. Glad to be back.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28354
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#196  Postby Master Lawbringer » Mar 23, 2020 12:57 pm

OlivierK wrote:If there's not equivocation, the "the torturer is immoral" and "the victim feels bad" are not in any sort of conflict.

So when we then revisit your original post we find ...
Master Lawbringer wrote:Most people will judge the situation as follows :

The person outside of the bull is considered 'evil'. He is obviously sadistic.
The person inside of the bull is considered the victim, hence 'good'.

But there is another perspective on this, lurking in the background, which the egalitarian judgement must also acknowledge :

The person outside of the bull is fine. He might actually be enjoying himself.
The person inside of the bull is in complete agony. Very bad indeed.

It's not a complete reversal of good into bad, and bad into good, but it's getting there, it seems.

... that this does not seem like any reversal at all. If a positive moral judgement is not equivocated with feeling good or a negative moral judgement is not equivocated with being in agony, then the second perspective is simply irrelevant, as it has nothing to say about morality at all without the equivocations you now assure us are absent.

The most charitable you could be is that since there's not equivocation, but feelings are just one of the factors taken into account when forming moral judgements, that the second perspective is exactly the same as the first: the torturer's enjoyment of causing harm is immoral, consistent with the immorality of causing the harm itself, and the victim is, as before morally neutral, but unfortunate.


If you reverse your notion of good, compassionate and egalitarian, you end up with a 'brazen bull'-like situation. In this way, you can escape the indoctrination from civilization, become untainted by moral doctrine in your analysis of moral doctrine, as far as can be, so you can get a clear perspective on what the relation actually is between the basic animalistic notions of pleasure and pain, and moral ideas on right and wrong.
And the relation is certainly not that of equivalence. It seems to reverse and actually end up unrelated. At least, slave morality does.
And anyone who understands that it's self-evident that you don't want to be put inside a brazen bull will realize how horrible that is.
User avatar
Master Lawbringer
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 65

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#197  Postby Master Lawbringer » Mar 23, 2020 1:22 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
Master Lawbringer, whilst I have some little sympathy for you that perhaps something has happened in your life to cause this hatred and fear of women, I would like to point out that there are no demons, or daemons, as you would have it, only those that are in our own heads, and that perhaps you have more than most other people.


What if I told you that there's an experiment you can perform to experience them?
User avatar
Master Lawbringer
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 65

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#198  Postby Fallible » Mar 23, 2020 1:24 pm

Oh lord...
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 49
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#199  Postby Doubtdispelled » Mar 23, 2020 1:29 pm

Master Lawbringer wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
Master Lawbringer, whilst I have some little sympathy for you that perhaps something has happened in your life to cause this hatred and fear of women, I would like to point out that there are no demons, or daemons, as you would have it, only those that are in our own heads, and that perhaps you have more than most other people.


What if I told you that there's an experiment you can perform to experience them?

Does it involve copious amounts of alcohol?
God's hand might have shaken just a bit when he was finishing off the supposed masterwork of his creative empire.. - Stephen King
Doubtdispelled
 
Posts: 11848

Print view this post

Re: Concerning the limit of inequality

#200  Postby Svartalf » Mar 23, 2020 1:31 pm

or psychogenic drugs?
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 52
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest