Philosophy

[Belinda]

Outsmarting them.

I see that you can be stroppy which is good. However you learned stroppiness from somewhere. Stroppiness does not arise de novo.

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay. In the meantime, you should think about that reciprocity problem.

Your entire theory depends upon a single reciprocal property right and that reciprocity is the actual underlying principle of your thing. So you need a much more convincing answer for the hypocrisy thing, and you can't afford to ground it on hypocrisy -> lies -> theft because that ruins your whole day.

There's a reason why every single religion has a version of the golden rule (do unto others as...), and why Kant's categorical imperative centres also on the subject of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is pivotal in addressing (im)morality in general; there are countless nuances to it. But it does boil down to lying. People attempt to impose moral/ethical structures/standards upon others, that they themselves have no intention of abiding. This applies to truth and honesty, even in simple discussions and arguments. It's about "intellectual honesty", and the sets of premises and presumptions (Values) that individuals have, that they bring to every social interaction.

I'd base Morality generally on Theft.

Theft of property,
Theft of sex (rape),
Theft of life (assault/murder).

Being "entitled" to other people's property, including taxation, sets a standard for (im)morality for the particular society. Every society in human history has some form of parasitism (theft from "The Elites" or "Deep State" which is justified for their own benefit, to the detriment of those who server under them).

You don't really understand the conversation you are trying to take over.

Imagine you are a cook making a sauce and you reduce and reduce and reduce that sauce until there is only one teaspoon's worth of it left in the pan. In a good sauce, even having taken out all the water content, there are still many ingredients and flavours which are all very highly concentrated. Henry's moral theory which I was criticising reduces to a sauce with a single ingredient.

So in Henry's case that means the whole of all moral language and reason can (in his opinion) be reconstituted by taking this notion of private property and of oneself being the definitive property, and adding absolutely nothing else that doesn't derive internally from that position.

My case against Henry's is that it doesn't even work for him, that deep down he doesn't believe his own argument, and that he doesn't know that yet because he hasn't bothered to think it through.

So for this example, the problem is that he needs reciprocity for his theory to even look a little bit like it might work. It has to be the case that if he owns himself, and you own yourself, there is a reciprocal duty on your part on his to respect each other's property. But Henry needs to have that reciprocal requirement ex nihilo. HE can't derive the principle from inside his moral schema, because he nees it before then to have a meaningful moral schema.

So this reciprocity problem I referred to just isn't there for you to solve. It is a Henry specific problem not a generic one. It's up to Henry to decide whether he wants his reduced to sauce to have two flavours instead of just being salt.

[Iwannaplato]

It's already established that roads are made by those who want them, not from taxes.

Whatever was made then is not what we want and need now. You might as well be making an equivocation. So, can you answer the question?

[Wizard22]

I see that you can be stroppy which is good. However you learned stroppiness from somewhere. Stroppiness does not arise de novo.

This isn't my first foray through the philosophy forum circuit, but, times have changed.

[Wizard22]

You don't really understand the conversation you are trying to take over.

Imagine you are a cook making a sauce and you reduce and reduce and reduce that sauce until there is only one teaspoon's worth of it left in the pan. In a good sauce, even having taken out all the water content, there are still many ingredients and flavours which are all very highly concentrated. Henry's moral theory which I was criticising reduces to a sauce with a single ingredient.

So in Henry's case that means the whole of all moral language and reason can (in his opinion) be reconstituted by taking this notion of private property and of oneself being the definitive property, and adding absolutely nothing else that doesn't derive internally from that position.

My case against Henry's is that it doesn't even work for him, that deep down he doesn't believe his own argument, and that he doesn't know that yet because he hasn't bothered to think it through.

So for this example, the problem is that he needs reciprocity for his theory to even look a little bit like it might work. It has to be the case that if he owns himself, and you own yourself, there is a reciprocal duty on your part on his to respect each other's property. But Henry needs to have that reciprocal requirement ex nihilo. HE can't derive the principle from inside his moral schema, because he nees it before then to have a meaningful moral schema.

So this reciprocity problem I referred to just isn't there for you to solve. It is a Henry specific problem not a generic one. It's up to Henry to decide whether he wants his reduced to sauce to have two flavours instead of just being salt.

You and Henry obviously have a history; but it is my thread so I made the attempt.

I will say that there's a categorical difference between somebody who "owns himself" and somebody who does not. A moral relationship cannot be established between those who are fundamentally amoral, and disbelieve that a person can "own themselves". The difference is between being free, and being a slave. This incompatibility exists within all moral systems. Some are made to lead; most of humanity is made to follow.

[Wizard22]

Whatever was made then is not what we want and need now. You might as well be making an equivocation. So, can you answer the question?

Didn't I already?

I said that there will always be some degree of corruption (Taxation/Injustice) that grows to coincide with any and every society. What matters then, is how much corruption a population is willing to tolerate, or not. And how much corruption is needed before its weight collapses the legs out from under a society. That's occurring right now, in the U.S. and hundreds of millions of people, around the world, may not be able to pay the costs of this.

[Iwannaplato]

Whatever was made then is not what we want and need now. You might as well be making an equivocation. So, can you answer the question?

Didn't I already?

I said that there will always be some degree of corruption (Taxation/Injustice) that grows to coincide with any and every society. What matters then, is how much corruption a population is willing to tolerate, or not. And how much corruption is needed before its weight collapses the legs out from under a society. That's occurring right now, in the U.S. and hundreds of millions of people, around the world, may not be able to pay the costs of this.

I wasn't asking about corruption. I was asking about taxes. I'm fine with alternatives. But I don't think the way trails were made in Westward migration works as a model for the creation of and maintenance of modern roads and highways, all of which requires expensive machinery and skilled labor (and unskilled labor). You're welcome to explain how things like prisons, fire departments, police departments and court systems would also be handled without taxes. Besides as far as I can see the first roads were built by the states and the postal roads were made by the feds.

In a tribe we know each and can divvy up labor well and we know we are workign for eachother, one degree of separation, motivation to get along with kin and tribe being motivations. But what would make me go out to run the machine that carves the first line of asphalt before someone else tears up the old blacktop?

How does this work in a large society where we don't know eachother if we don't collect money from citizens to fund this?

Truly I am happy to get an alternative. But the nearly non-technical 'roads' in the 1900s and earlier just don't cut it.

[henry quirk]

We're spendin' too much time worryin' about symptoms and ignorin' the disease.

What is your diagnosis?

Domestication of man. To make him willingly accept the leash. It's hard, long, dirty work. Can't just work on his body: gotta work on his spirit. He must be broken, demoralized, made to question his certainties (that he is free, is a free will, is his own; that he has a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property; that he is sumthin' more than, sumthin' other than, a smart ape; that he is a moral being).

Break him and he'll accept all manner of atrocity, and he'll accept the leash.

[Immanuel Can]

We're spendin' too much time worryin' about symptoms and ignorin' the disease.

What is your diagnosis?

Domestication of man. To make him willingly accept the leash. It's hard, long, dirty work. Can't just work on his body: gotta work on his spirit. He must be broken, demoralized, made to question his certainties (that he is free, is a free will, is his own; that he has a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property; that he is sumthin' more than, sumthin' other than, a smart ape; that he is a moral being).

Break him and he'll accept all manner of atrocity, and he'll accept the leash.

And threated his security. Make him afraid that his income, his health, his relationships, his future...all are in peril. Then promise him that a paternalistic government will sweep in and take away his cares. He'll reach for the leash eagerly, to get away from all the anxiety you've induced in him. He'll even be grateful for his enslavement, because of the relief from uncertainty and threat.

Promise him the safety of the herd. Promise him that however bad his life becomes, however bad, in fact, you make it, it would only be much worse if he were free. Keep him terrified to step out of the line. Keep invoking climate change, economic disaster, job loss, pandemics, war and so on, so eventually he wearies, and just wants "someone" or "anyone" to eliminate his fears, at any cost.

That's how you break a spirit and make a man a slave.

[Age]

'Discipline' in what way?

In the way that, in an Abundant society, a person should ration his/her diet so not to overindulge and become overweight or obese, or become too sedentary/lazy/apathetic by not exercising or interacting with nature.

As long as it is in the way that involves 'self'-'discipline' where one is continually learning and obtaining further knowledge of and about what is Right and Good in Life, then all is well and good.

And, as long as the 'discipline' word had absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with that very DISTORTED and ABUSIVE view where one is, supposedly, being "taught" about what is right and good in Life through punishment nor when they are being TOLD that this is "good for you".

See, absolutely NO child 'needs' 'discipline' AT ALL, but absolutely EVERY adult 'needs' to learn 'self-discipline' in order to learn HOW to TEACH children what is ACTUALLY Good, and thus Right, in Life.

Where did 'sexual appetite' come from?

Sexual appetite comes naturally during the Pubescent/Adolescent stages, and then is quickly contaminated in Western society through a mixture of loose morals on television, actively promoting homo/transexuality to children in public schools, pornography, and absence of strict religious Morals/Ethics.

1. Well OBVIOUSLY so-called 'strict religious moral/ethics' has NOT worked and thus does NOT work. So, this way or method is OBVIOUSLY NO GOOD. In fact 'strict rules', enforced by punishment and/or ridicule it could be argued is WHY human being society is in such a downfall spiral and projectory.

2. Now, if 'sexual appetite' comes NATURALLY, like you just proposed 'it' does, then it could well be argued that if one comes to have a sexual appetite for homosexuality or transexuality, then this is just a NATURAL occurrence anyway, correct?

3. What do you mean by, "and then 'sexual appetite' is QUICKLY contaminated in "western" society through ..."? In the days when this is being written, a mixture of what you call 'loose morals' existed well BEFORE children go through the pubescent/adolescent stages. Thus, children well BEFORE they go through the NATURAL stages of obtaining a 'sexual appetite' have ALREADY been VERY EXPOSED, (or as you say 'contaminated') to what you call 'loose morals', and so children are NOT "THEN, QUICKLY CONTAMINATED", AFTER they go through some specific stage/s in Life.

4. 'Loose morals' is a VERY relative term. In other words what you call 'loose' "others" call 'normal' and what "others" call 'loose' 'you', "yourself", would call 'normal'. So, which one of you is Right?

5. Just because you do NOT like homosexuality and transexuality and also do NOT like these behaviors being openly displayed NOR promoted in absolutely ANY way AT ALL does NOT make nor mean that those behaviors are Wrong, nor Bad.

If you have NOT YET DISCOVERED what makes those misbehaviors ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY Wrong, and thus can NOT YET provide a sound AND valid argument for your dislikes here, then there is REALLY NO use in just telling us what you do NOT like, as though that, in itself, makes those 'behaviors' Wrong.

Also, you began this thread with three, 'simple', questions. Now, did you do this just to 'lure', 'hook', and 'reel' some of 'us' in so that then you could TELL us what you BELIEVE is actually what is right and good in Life? Or, did you start this thread for some other reason?

[Age]

You don't really understand the conversation you are trying to take over.

Imagine you are a cook making a sauce and you reduce and reduce and reduce that sauce until there is only one teaspoon's worth of it left in the pan. In a good sauce, even having taken out all the water content, there are still many ingredients and flavours which are all very highly concentrated. Henry's moral theory which I was criticising reduces to a sauce with a single ingredient.

So in Henry's case that means the whole of all moral language and reason can (in his opinion) be reconstituted by taking this notion of private property and of oneself being the definitive property, and adding absolutely nothing else that doesn't derive internally from that position.

My case against Henry's is that it doesn't even work for him, that deep down he doesn't believe his own argument, and that he doesn't know that yet because he hasn't bothered to think it through.

So for this example, the problem is that he needs reciprocity for his theory to even look a little bit like it might work. It has to be the case that if he owns himself, and you own yourself, there is a reciprocal duty on your part on his to respect each other's property. But Henry needs to have that reciprocal requirement ex nihilo. HE can't derive the principle from inside his moral schema, because he nees it before then to have a meaningful moral schema.

So this reciprocity problem I referred to just isn't there for you to solve. It is a Henry specific problem not a generic one. It's up to Henry to decide whether he wants his reduced to sauce to have two flavours instead of just being salt.

You and Henry obviously have a history; but it is my thread so I made the attempt.

I will say that there's a categorical difference between somebody who "owns himself" and somebody who does not. A moral relationship cannot be established between those who are fundamentally amoral, and disbelieve that a person can "own themselves". The difference is between being free, and being a slave. This incompatibility exists within all moral systems. Some are made to lead; most of humanity is made to follow.

Who or what MADE 'these somes' and 'the most' the way you say they are here?

[Age]

Whatever was made then is not what we want and need now. You might as well be making an equivocation. So, can you answer the question?

Didn't I already?

I said that there will always be some degree of corruption (Taxation/Injustice) that grows to coincide with any and every society.

OBVIOUSLY you have NOT YET LEARNED HOW to make and create otherwise.

Also, WHERE did this NEGATIVITY of human beings COME FROM, EXACTLY?

What matters then, is how much corruption a population is willing to tolerate, or not.

Could I suggest that absolutely EVERY one who is NOT involved in 'the corruption' is NOT willing to tolerate 'corruption', AND, absolutely EVERY one who is involved in 'the corruption' is willing to tolerate 'the corruption'. Therefore, how much corruption a population is willing to tolerate, or not, depends solely on who is ACTUALLY involved in 'the corruption'.

And how much corruption is needed before its weight collapses the legs out from under a society.

Could I suggest that just one skerrick of corruption WILL collapse 'the legs out from under a society', or just 'collapse society' to what that society could POSSIBLY BE or BE LIKE.

That's occurring right now, in the U.S. and hundreds of millions of people, around the world, may not be able to pay the costs of this.

[Age]

Whatever was made then is not what we want and need now. You might as well be making an equivocation. So, can you answer the question?

Didn't I already?

I said that there will always be some degree of corruption (Taxation/Injustice) that grows to coincide with any and every society. What matters then, is how much corruption a population is willing to tolerate, or not. And how much corruption is needed before its weight collapses the legs out from under a society. That's occurring right now, in the U.S. and hundreds of millions of people, around the world, may not be able to pay the costs of this.

I wasn't asking about corruption. I was asking about taxes. I'm fine with alternatives. But I don't think the way trails were made in Westward migration works as a model for the creation of and maintenance of modern roads and highways, all of which requires expensive machinery and skilled labor (and unskilled labor). You're welcome to explain how things like prisons, fire departments, police departments and court systems would also be handled without taxes. Besides as far as I can see the first roads were built by the states and the postal roads were made by the feds.

OBVIOUSLY the FIRST roads were NOT built by these things. But, then again, as ALWAYS it all DEPENDS on HOW one is DEFINING the words and terms they USE and HOW they are LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

In a tribe we know each and can divvy up labor well and we know we are workign for eachother, one degree of separation, motivation to get along with kin and tribe being motivations. But what would make me go out to run the machine that carves the first line of asphalt before someone else tears up the old blacktop?

How does this work in a large society where we don't know eachother if we don't collect money from citizens to fund this?

Truly I am happy to get an alternative.

IF you were Truly happy to get alternatives, then the alternatives are VERY SIMPLE to UNDERSTAND, and VERY EASY to LEARN.

But, 'you', "iwannaplato", are OBVIOUSLY, REALLY, NOT YET READY, let alone, REALLY, Truly HAPPY, to HEAR and SEE 'the alternatives'. 'you', however, are Truly HAPPY to get absolutely ANY thing that OPPOSES your currently HELD ONTO BELIEFS, which you would then LOVE to argue or fight AGAINST.

But the nearly non-technical 'roads' in the 1900s and earlier just don't cut it.

[Age]

We're spendin' too much time worryin' about symptoms and ignorin' the disease.

What is your diagnosis?

Domestication of man. To make him willingly accept the leash. It's hard, long, dirty work. Can't just work on his body: gotta work on his spirit. He must be broken, demoralized, made to question his certainties (that he is free, is a free will, is his own; that he has a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property; that he is sumthin' more than, sumthin' other than, a smart ape; that he is a moral being).

Break him and he'll accept all manner of atrocity, and he'll accept the leash.

LOL EXACTLY like you are DOING here "henry quirk". 'you' are NO more A SLAVE than ALL the "other" SLAVES of 'your time'. 'you' just do NOT YET KNOW this. 'you' have been SO BROKEN, and thus A True SLAVE, that 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'you' are NOT even A SLAVE, AT ALL.

'you' just ACCEPT what is going on around 'you' while at the SAME TIME BELIEVING that 'you' are FREE and NOT A SLAVE.

Which REALLY WAS quite HUMOROUS and FUNNY to OBSERVE and watch play out, back in 'your days'.

[Age]

What is your diagnosis?

Domestication of man. To make him willingly accept the leash. It's hard, long, dirty work. Can't just work on his body: gotta work on his spirit. He must be broken, demoralized, made to question his certainties (that he is free, is a free will, is his own; that he has a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property; that he is sumthin' more than, sumthin' other than, a smart ape; that he is a moral being).

Break him and he'll accept all manner of atrocity, and he'll accept the leash.

And threated his security.

One of the first RULES or LESSONS of "christianity" is "threaten their security", that is; - If you do NOT follow us, then you will be punished, tormented and damned for eternity.

Make him afraid that his income, his health, his relationships, his future...all are in peril.

Again, first "lesson" TAUGHT in "christianity".

Then promise him that a paternalistic government will sweep in and take away his cares.

Which is EXACTLY like the second "lesson" TAUGHT in "christianity", that is; - Follow us and BELIEVE in what we say, THEN you will have peace and harmony for eternity.

He'll reach for the leash eagerly, to get away from all the anxiety you've induced in him. He'll even be grateful for his enslavement, because of the relief from uncertainty and threat.

This could NOT be MORE LIKE the FEAR induced in "others" through "christianity" "teachings".

Promise him the safety of the herd.

AGAIN, "christianity" itself, (among EVERY other 'separatist' groups of people).

Promise him that however bad his life becomes, however bad, in fact, you make it, it would only be much worse if he were free.

Only when you BELONG and STAY with "christianity" you will be Truly HAPPY, and FREE, people are TAUGHT to BELIEVE, and which SOME people/slaves end up BELIEVING is ABSOLUTELY True.

Keep him terrified to step out of the line.

Which is "christianity", and other so-called 'religions', to a TEE

Keep invoking climate change, economic disaster, job loss, pandemics, war and so on, so eventually he wearies, and just wants "someone" or "anyone" to eliminate his fears, at any cost.

Let us NOT FORGET 'apocalypses' nor 'armageddons' also here

That's how you break a spirit and make a man a slave.

VERY, VERY True "immanuel can".

Thank you for POINTING OUT the VERY Truth of "christianity", and of other 'religions' AS WELL.

We KNEW 'you' would finally BREAK and EXPOSE and REVEAL thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of YOUR 'religion' and of 'religious' "TEACHINGS", themselves.

BREAKING 'you', adult human beings, LIARS/DEVILS and MAKING 'you' SLAVES TO and OF thee Truth IS A CENTRAL MESSAGE, which WAS INTENDED and IS being TOLD throughout RELIGIOUS TEXTS. But just about ALL of 'you' have been BLINDED to THIS Fact and thus Truth. As well as being BLINDED to MANY other MESSAGES and Truths, ALSO.