Well-written, lazer-concise description of the times we live in. Yayy - I hope this helps you rethink your idea that moral relativism is ok and harmless:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-08/understanding-evil-globalism-pizzagate
Interesting read thanks for the post TF. I certainly question quite a few of his simplifying assumptions and he tends to have a worldview that is far too black & white IMO. He also frequently presents his own personal opinions as factual truths which then leads him to his “natural conclusions” but if those opinions are relaxed those conclusions arent so natural anymore and the whole argument comes tumbling down. As with most people (myself and everyone here included) they tend to reject evidence contrary to their own beliefs and agree to ones that support their belief.
Take for example his blanket black & white statement of: " At the heart of collectivism is the idea that human beings are “blank slates;” that we are born empty and are completely dependent on our environment in order to learn what is right and wrong and how to be good people or good citizens. The environment becomes the arbiter of decency, rather than conscience, and whoever controls the environment, by extension, becomes god." This statement makes it pretty clear the writer has a pretty black & white world view and this goes back to the age old Nature vs Nurture argument which after years and years of debate guess what it seems like its a grey area where its a combination of both. Far too definitive of a statement and anyone subscribing to either end is missing the big picture.
While he is correct about Good & Evil being presented to us from birth, those are ambiguous terms and there is not universally definition for them. They are in reality just ideas that we ascribe traits to. IMO Good & Evil are culturally dependent just as what is considered rude is completely dependent on culture.
Thanks again for the post, was interesting to read either way. Makes some solid points and does it in a generally non-threatening way which is certainly good for discourse. I still believe this whole “my side is right, your side is wrong” tribalism is a huge reason everyone hates each other
statements like that may seem thrown together just to support a pre-determined conclusion, but they are based on a deep background knowledge which would take pages upon pages to connect every dot. i’m guessing you have not done the research and your conclusion is not based on any rigorous investigation into the philosophical underpinnings of your world view. somebody told you everything is relative and you said, ‘yea that makes sense’ and you left it at that without following the argument to its necessary conclusion. In any case, the evidence has been building for many many years that the march towards collectivism is a march towards another dark age.
Im not the one with a absolute world view here so I would suggest you have the burden of proof. I am here saying 100% collectivism would be harmful because decisions would always be made to benefit society at the expense of individuals, and 100% individualism would be harmful because to uphold peoples individual liberties you would be passing over glaring things that could be done to help large masses of people. Now where in between these 2 camps do we as a society draw the line and state where we want to be? Thats a good question, how do we assess where on the scale we currently are, and how we might get to where we want to be? Those are also good questions.
^those questions are irrelevant because it’s impossible to reach an equilibrium where they exist for any period of time. based on your response, i am correct you’ve never bothered to study the philosophy underlying your or my position. that is why you are so confused. that is why sooooooooo many people are confused - they get their philosophy from facebook memes. collectivism offers them the comfort of not needing to think or exist as a human. they can just live off of a never ending succession of pleasure impulses…until the ability of the state to provide them runs out. good luck with that. you may die in blissful ignorance and the cost of your ignorance will be borne by my kids. who cares, since it’s all relative and everyone else is doing it.
Between work & L3 studying I dont particularly have a lot of time for leisurely reading. You can go ahead and believe there are absolute universal truths, ill go ahead and not and we’ll both be quite content. Its pretty clear we dont have similar beliefs and while I do enjoy these discussions I dont have the time to read through a lot of books to dig into your head. You are a pretty spiritual guy, I am not. Its not shocking we dont have similar beliefs off of that alone.
As to your statement of people living just fine until the ability of the state to provide for them runs out, that is the very basis of our economic system. I dont have to farm food for myself, the system in place has people who specialize in that for me and can do it far more efficiently due to their specialization. That allows me to specialize in something and do that more efficiently than many others. Then we trade, ta-da efficiency gains to the economy. You could make the argument that we are almost too efficient & that it, along with automation, is causing problems. But that would be a whole other discussion.
These philosophical discussions were certainly more in bchads territory and im sure he would have had something interesting to add
funny you mention bchad. i was going to mention him and our debates but thought it would be in poor taste.
you’re comment on the basis of an economic system and how that has anything to do with a state engaging in it is complete and utter nonsense and makes me question if you might be the first person to successfully cheat his way through level i & II.
i’m sorry but you don’t get off that easy. whether you realize it or not, your philosophy requires victims, which means it is by definition evil. i realize that may seem harsh, but it is undeniable truth at its core and there is no getting around it. your philosophy is evil. i don’t know if you noticed, but the tide has turned definitively against people who share your philosophy and in particular against those who benefit greatly by perpetuating it at the expense of fellow human beings. i highly recommend you do some deep self-reflection and decide which side you are on.
I mean a mention doesnt cause any harm I dont think. If others disagree ill gladly remove it, just a mention that I always enjoyed reading his take as he was certainly more well read than I am.
Nice, the ad hominem really adds value to your statement.
I had a whole thing typed out before and accidentally closed my window. The TLDR of it is that every philosophy causes harm to some, so they are all somewhat evil. Arent you always on here spouting off about “the purge” or some nonsense? Wouldnt that have victims? I dont need to decided which side I am on as I, like most people, am just trying to get through life. I work, I study, I spend time with friends and family. I dont need to pick a side on some made up war that AJ has conviced you is a real thing and that you are on the right side of. For a group that mocks “social justice warriors” its pretty ironic that they themselves contantly talk about this war they are in.
since this is like trying to explain physics to a 4 year old, i’ll just stop here. remember me when you inevitably run into your next life contradiction, hopefully it doesn’t push you over the edge and you can piece together something you would classify as a life.
I don’t understand or subscribe to the notion that every philosophy causes harm to some. The greatest truth is to accept the harm that is coming and sacrifice self for the sake of others.
The fun thing is watching TF act like an expert in a field when he is a guy who has read some spiritual/psychology books from various individuals that may or may not have any real credentials while he proceeds to then tell other people how correct/incorrect their life is based on his reading. The frustration on your part must mirror what its like for people who have read some books on global warming talking to repubs who deny it exists. We’re not even on the same wave length partner, but I am glad you have kept the Turd Fergeson avatar it makes me chuckle still when I see it. What a great skit
TF… what’s your beef? Y was just trying to make a humble yet logical argument with you. I see him trying to meet you half way and you trying to “win” … or something.
He is spot on. Everyone wants to be right these days and they pick these sides. They start defending them with such passion that it becomes part of their ego. When part of the foundation of their position happens to be in question, they can’t put their ego aside in order to adapt their thinking or even just to accept there is perhaps more than one correct answer. We have all these extreme points of view and no one has the courage to meet anyone else half way.
Bravo Y 
sorry KMD, but you and Yayy are arguing from an uninformed position on so many levels. I do agree that my tactics should probably change if my goal is to get people to understand; it’s just really easy on a forum to fall into into pissing matches. my beef isn’t with you as people, it is with ignorance that has very real effects on peace and freedom loving people.
Thanks for the support KMD. Its pretty impossible to win a discussion with someone who believes they are the sole arbiter of good/evil and obviously they are on the good side. Sometimes I think delusions of grandeur, others I just think people have a natural propensity to think they are more important than just another ant in the colony. The smartest thing people ever did (for their own personal greed) was turn a discussion on how to run a society into a “war” because people can have discussions and make compromises, but in a war you continue fighting until you “win”
After watching the Scientology series w/ Leah Remini I could easily see 30 years ago pre internet someone like TF getting sucked into that world.
I’ve not read much of the thread, but from my experience with more interesting threads, I would certainly agree that Yayyy tends to be one of the more reasonable, open-minded people here and is willing to listen to well reasoned arguments that disagree with his initial views.
Yayy, you’re a lot like bchad and i have a guess as to why. enjoy your ‘life’.
Thanks higg. I really enjoy discussions like these, and I have certainly been swayed on positions from discussions like these (although typically its over policy/positions rather than more philosophical things like this which are more abstract). Seeing as though TF doesnt even consider what I am living to be a life, apparently I am unfulfilled and one day after being desperate, I will come around to his position because it is the steady state of the universe or something like that.
Isnt this the beauty of America? That people so different can non-violently live in the same country. Although I’d imagine if you really nailed down plenty of specifics we would have more in common than a discussion like this would lead you to believe.
-
It is difficult to compromise on certain aspects of philosophy or theology (or even politics) as it comes down to a system of beliefs and values. 2. It is best to ‘agree to disagree’ in certain discussions when the heart of the matter and disagreement is found.
-
If one does not agree to disagree, it is fine as long as the discussion continues without personal attacks. A cordial argument between two people who vehemently disagree on an issue is a true sign of a civilized society.