Master Lawbringer wrote: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.

My bold.

This seems to be your point, in a nutshell. "If you reverse your notion of good, it seems to reverse and actually end up unrelated."

Edit: Gawd, after writing that, then I read the previous page... Frankly, it's evidence of a very compassionate society that if you perform ML's experiment, people will offer help. I guess it's one way to get a meal and a roof over your head.

What if instead of asking rhetorical questions you put up or shut up, Master Lawbringer? If your “experiment” returns repeated positive results of an empirical nature the last fucking thing you should be doing is wasting your time, and ours, by posting insane shit on an obscure internet forum. You should be seeking an appropriate peer reviewed journal to publish those findings. So, why even mention your “experiment” here? Could it be your position is based on crap you have dreamed up from thin air, and the generation of real world evidence resulting from your experiment is less likely than me flying under my own power? I think your momma should have followed the example of Sheldon Coopers’ mom, and had you tested.

RS

The OP has reproduced essentially the same text on at least two other websites, the second known to me being here:

http://boards.4channel.org/x/thread/24523082

We don't need another copy of it here. This whole thing should be binned.

Spearthrower wrote:There's an entire internet out there full of lunacy that will no doubt welcome your wibble with open arms. Here, no. Stow it.

People like him have little incentive to leave when they keep getting replies to their bollocks.

Just saying.

Spearthrower wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:
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.

Your entire argument is equivocation. You have not always said 'based on'. As I literally cited in the post you're supposedly replying to.

And yeah, chucking the word 'strawman' at every response isn't helping you out of your dire confusion.

I never said 'they are the same' and I gave lots of examples that show that I don't mean that at all. So you're oversimplifying my argument. Strawman.

GrahamH 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.

It would be bad, highly undesirable to be a person suffering punishment, but that is not the same thing as saying that the punishment is "morally wrong" or that the people imposing punishment are immoral, or that anyone suffering must be 'good'.
If it's 'morally justified...' then by definition it is moral.

You would need to make some sort of argument for what is and is not moral, which you don't seem to have attempted.

Master morality, and I've been considering the meta-issue. From the first post :

One way to look at the CMPML is to observe that rather than being just another religion, the CMPML considers the meta-issue : Control over this morality dynamic to improve the previous situation. A generator of religions, if you will, be they slave or master moralistic, to aid the cause of will that is love.

Love is the Law.

Spearthrower wrote:

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?

What if I told you that this is a forum specifically for rational skepticism, not ignorant fuckwitted appeals to magical bollocks to pretend to be special to strangers on the internet.

I realize that you might struggle to grasp this - far too many people do. There's an entire internet out there full of lunacy that will no doubt welcome your wibble with open arms. Here, no. Stow it.

Rational skepticism, not dogmatic materialism.

OlivierK wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote: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.

My bold.

This seems to be your point, in a nutshell. "If you reverse your notion of good, it seems to reverse and actually end up unrelated."

Edit: Gawd, after writing that, then I read the previous page... Frankly, it's evidence of a very compassionate society that if you perform ML's experiment, people will offer help. I guess it's one way to get a meal and a roof over your head.

Change someones sentences around and you can make them claim anything. Is that your point?

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:What if instead of asking rhetorical questions you put up or shut up, Master Lawbringer? If your “experiment” returns repeated positive results of an empirical nature the last fucking thing you should be doing is wasting your time, and ours, by posting insane shit on an obscure internet forum. You should be seeking an appropriate peer reviewed journal to publish those findings. So, why even mention your “experiment” here? Could it be your position is based on crap you have dreamed up from thin air, and the generation of real world evidence resulting from your experiment is less likely than me flying under my own power? I think your momma should have followed the example of Sheldon Coopers’ mom, and had you tested.

RS

If no one in the entire world understands anything about anti-egalitarian morality, how can it be that large-scale anti-egalitarian structures are still flooding the market with drugs?

Any psychologists or sociologists care to explain that one to me? Anybody with any expertise? Some peer-reviewed papers, perhaps? Anybody? Worldwide?

Peer review means nothing if the peers can't be trusted.
And I don't trust people who maintain that it's not self-evident that it's bad to get tortured to death.

Master Lawbringer wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote: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.

My bold.

This seems to be your point, in a nutshell. "If you reverse your notion of good, it seems to reverse and actually end up unrelated."

Edit: Gawd, after writing that, then I read the previous page... Frankly, it's evidence of a very compassionate society that if you perform ML's experiment, people will offer help. I guess it's one way to get a meal and a roof over your head.

Change someones sentences around and you can make them claim anything. Is that your point?

No.

This shit leads down a dark and stinking rabbit hole, it seems.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=27887

Nasty stuff.

GrahamH wrote:This shit leads down a dark and stinking rabbit hole, it seems.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=27887

Nasty stuff.

Macdoc provided a link to that in post #56.

GrahamH wrote:This shit leads down a dark and stinking rabbit hole, it seems.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=27887

Nasty stuff.

I incorrectly identified the enemy. Daemons from Hell wasn't my first guess. Furthermore, I was under attack by them as well.
If you take that into account, it holds up quite well, what I wrote.

Words like 'nasty' don't mean anything coming from people that do not consider getting tortured to death as an inherently bad thing.

And in Hell, you can basically leave out the 'death' part.

Master Lawbringer wrote:And I don't trust people who maintain that it's not self-evident that it's bad to get tortured to death.

I don't trust people who equivocate "it's bad to get tortured to death" with "it's immoral to be the victim of torture", just so they can claim that there's a perspective that's the opposite of finding the torturer immoral.

I challenged you to stop using the word "bad" (due to your constant equivocation between the sense of "unpleasant" and the sense of "immoral"). You're still using it, and still equivocating.

Master Lawbringer wrote:I incorrectly identified the enemy. Daemons from Hell wasn't my first guess. Furthermore, I was under attack by them as well.
If you take that into account, it holds up quite well, what I wrote.

Words like 'nasty' don't mean anything coming from people that do not consider getting tortured to death as an inherently bad thing.

And in Hell, you can basically leave out the 'death' part.

Please get psychiatric help. Demons are not real, and nobody here will discuss them as though they are. If you are really troubled by these thoughts then a professional is the only person to turn to.

I move we just stop posting. No good will come of further engagement, and even lurkers would be better off not seeing this. This isn’t anything like exchanging salvos with a creotard.

RS

OlivierK wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:And I don't trust people who maintain that it's not self-evident that it's bad to get tortured to death.

I don't trust people who equivocate "it's bad to get tortured to death" with "it's immoral to be the victim of torture", just so they can claim that there's a perspective that's the opposite of finding the torturer immoral.

I challenged you to stop using the word "bad" (due to your constant equivocation between the sense of "unpleasant" and the sense of "immoral"). You're still using it, and still equivocating.

Yeah, and I challenge you to stop using the word 'equivocate' and to stop using the same old strawman argument that I've already dismissed dozens of times. Like so :

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.

Thommo wrote:

Master Lawbringer wrote:I incorrectly identified the enemy. Daemons from Hell wasn't my first guess. Furthermore, I was under attack by them as well.
If you take that into account, it holds up quite well, what I wrote.

Words like 'nasty' don't mean anything coming from people that do not consider getting tortured to death as an inherently bad thing.

And in Hell, you can basically leave out the 'death' part.

Please get psychiatric help. Demons are not real, and nobody here will discuss them as though they are. If you are really troubled by these thoughts then a professional is the only person to turn to.

And insanity doesn't mean anything coming from people that do not consider getting tortured to death as an inherently bad thing.

I don't think that experiment would work very well around here. "Give me money or die" will get you shot real damn fast.

Master Lawbringer wrote:And insanity doesn't mean anything coming from people that do not consider getting tortured to death as an inherently bad thing.

Needing help doesn't mean you're insane, it just means that you need help. Lots of us need help from time to time and it's nothing to be ashamed of.

And please, don't dismiss this because someone who wasn't me said something you don't like. Everyone here is an individual and speaks only for themself, not some collective, real or imagined. If you're really troubled by thoughts of demons then it's your own wellbeing that would benefit from seeing a professional, it has nothing to do with whether I said that "getting tortured to death is not an inherently bad thing"*.

*For the record I didn't though. As far as I can tell the closest anyone has come is saying it's not inherently morally good or bad to be the victim of torture, merely physically and psychologically good or bad - in contrast with the act of torturing someone which they regard to be inherently morally bad. That is to say we prohibit people from torturing, we do not praise them for being tortured.

These distinctions are not important compared to mental health though.