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.

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.

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.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:our chap here ignored that post.

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

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.

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:Lilith eh?

Fair enough.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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?