Master Lawbringer wrote:Show me...

Make it worth my while. This is, after all, philosophy, and there isn't any recognized currency outside academia. So start citing, instead of making shit up that's convenient for you to assume.

Macdoc wrote:Why did you get banned

Master Lawbringer
BANNED
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:35 am

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

Thanks for the headsup.

I recommend that people who still think discussing anything with Master Lawbringer is not a total waste of time have a look at the thread he started there. All things being equal, they'll change their minds by the time they get to the end of the second sentence of his opening post.

So basically you people want to detach morality from what feels good or bad and insist you still have a _moral_ theory in that case.
Or you'd even go as far as denying that a kick in the nuts is self-evidently bad.

Save it.

Master Lawbringer wrote:So basically you people want to detach morality from what feels good or bad and insist you still have a _moral_ theory in that case.
Or you'd even go as far as denying that a kick in the nuts is self-evidently bad.

You'd like stuff to be self-evidently so without qualification. That means you're looking for some absolute morality. In other words, a context-free kick in the nuts is you jacking off with words. Go with God, sonny.

Mutual benefit devoid of emotion?

An agreement between parties for mutual protection from external threats, like famine. Feelings don’t matter if you are starving, and neither does it matter if it makes people feel good, bad or indifferent if mutual agreement results in survival. Besides, even if such an agreement did elicit emotional reactions those reactions would play no part in the base reality of survival. That goes back to your false equivalence of your “new and improved” morality with “animal morality”. Survival isn’t bad unless you don’t, and social groupings of animals is often driven by the same need for individuals to survive. Are those animals, such as cliff swallows, acting on emotion, or the mutual benefit of group to increase the odds of survival?

You still just don’t get it. Your position is not the end all be all, and your opinion is not the last word on the matter. In fact your myopic failings in this regard are pretty bad. The mere fact that I disagree with your singular vision blows your entire premise out of the water. Of course you will ignore this as you do everything that challenges your tripe.

Now, answer Cito’s question. Why were you banned from the linked forum? It wasn’t because of trolling by any chance was it?

RS

Master Lawbringer wrote:Morality is ultimately based on the self-evident notions of what feels good or bad. That we make a distinction between what feels good and what is morally good is the entire crux of the matter : That the difference even exists at all.
Why does this difference exist? Where does it come from and how does it relate to let’s call it ‘animal morality’.

We often make a distinction between what “feels” good and what is “actually” good in contexts other than morality, for example when choosing between a delicious food and one which is more nutritionally sound. Our evolved brains have fast responses which may be contradicted by the slower, thought-through answers. Morality is about gaining the large advantages of cooperation by managing the costs and benefits to each individual in the group, this may well take more calculated thought than immediate feel-good behaviour.

There’s no need to suppose that humans are different from other living things in that we’ve evolved by natural selection as if we were designed to maximise our inclusive fitness (the survival of our genes in our kin as well as ourselves). Morality isn’t an exception; creating moral rules and then following and enforcing them increases (on average) each individual’s inclusive fitness because they gain the benefits of cooperation.

Cooperation for mutual benefit is central to evolutionary theory; as explained in this video. Each human is a colony of cooperating cells, and the DNA in the cells can be considered as a group of cooperating genes, but those forms of cooperation don’t require any thinking. Humans have evolved yet another version of cooperation, one which requires the ability to think through costs and benefits both for ourselves and for others, but the basic theory behind our form of cooperation is the same as for all the other evolved forms of cooperation: the extra benefit, on average, to each individual's inclusive fitness.

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:
Now, answer Cito’s question

Wasn't mine, at the time, but now I'll get on that bandwagon.

I believe you will find your answer if you read that thread, Roger.

Cito di Pense wrote:

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:
Now, answer Cito’s question

Wasn't mine, at the time, but now I'll get on that bandwagon.

Yep, my bad. It was Macdoc’s question.

RS

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:
Now, answer Cito’s question

Wasn't mine, at the time, but now I'll get on that bandwagon.

Yep, my bad. It was Macdoc’s question.

RS

Over in the other forum, he invoked the uncertainty principle. Which one, I'm not sure, but that's what he called it. He invoked granularity. If we can find three more invocations, he will have cinq.

Fallible wrote:I believe you will find your answer if you read that thread, Roger.

Oh, I did read some of that. I just want the OP to give us his spin. I imagine it would be “good” to watch him squirm a little.

RS

Ha!

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Why were you banned from the linked forum? It wasn’t because of trolling by any chance was it?

No, it wasn't. Follow up on the link Macdoc provided. He was banned for being batshit crazy. Probably beat Galaxian in the lunatic stakes, though given Galaxian's degree of lunacy, it really doesn't if Mustard Lawnringer won by a country mile or trailed him by the same distance.

ETA: Oh, I now see you've looked at it.

Like I said, I just want to see the squirming. Something “good” should come of this!

RS

Hermit wrote:

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Why were you banned from the linked forum? It wasn’t because of trolling by any chance was it?

No, it wasn't. Follow up on the link Macdoc provided. He was banned for being batshit crazy. Probably beat Galaxian in the lunatic stakes, though given Galaxian's degree of lunacy, it really doesn't if Mustard Lawnringer won by a country mile or trailed him by the same distance.

ETA: Oh, I now see you've looked at it.

Actually the only flaw in my previous writings was that I incorrectly identified the real enemy, the most important principle behind this absurd, anti-evolutionary, state you peoples seem to be in. It has to do with occultism.

And you can call me crazy but I'm not the one requiring evidence for the self-evident statement that getting kicked in the nuts is bad. You people outrank me on the insanity-scale.

Galaxian was cool :)

Hermit wrote:

Macdoc wrote:Why did you get banned

Master Lawbringer
BANNED
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:35 am

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

Thanks for the headsup.

I recommend that people who still think discussing anything with Master Lawbringer is not a total waste of time have a look at the thread he started there. All things being equal, they'll change their minds by the time they get to the end of the second sentence of his opening post.

Thelemic state? frag, I don't light the use of that "thelema" root, whether it's in Rabelais' hopelessly aristocratic Thelème Abbey, or in the writings of Aleister Crowley...

And yeah, he seems crazier than a whole flight of loons

Is there anybody who agrees that getting kicked in the nuts is just self-evidently a bad thing?
Anybody who agrees just with that?

It's not if I'm the one doing the kicking, I need a good reason to do a thing like that.