Lying

[reasonvemotion]

Sometimes lying, which is a false statement, intending to deceive, can appear to be the best course of action. A friend lies about her friend's location, when her drunken boyfriend is threatening to beat her up. A doctor lies to a patient about the true outcome of that patient's longevity or a person's last wish, is not to give money to charity and it is given to the poor after his death. When you want to do the right thing in an impossible situation, being honest may not always be the correct thing to do. Kant said lying was ALWAYS morally wrong, was he wrong? What is the truth about lying?

[Atthet]

This forum is a perfect example of why postmodern, "civilized" individuals must learn to lie, and lie well, to find success in this globalized world. If you tell the truth, if you are honest, then you face censorship, deletion, and banishment from popular participation. You are forced underground and into dissenting, much more radical groups of fundamentalist ideologues. You are rejected by the majority, who represent Judeo-Christian dogmatism.
Philosophy is opposed to all forms of dogmatism, that is why philosophy is about doubt, critique, inquiry, and skepticism, not blind faith. That is why philosophy is about resistance, competition, reason, and not instinct. Morons like the women on this forum, could never face the truth if it were pure, and uncensored. This is why they rally around their shepherd, Rick Lewis, who protects you from your own stupidity.

If women were to go into direct competition with men, as has almost never been the case in evolutionary history, then women would fail miserably. Because men would have to see women as men, as equals, and this means as potential threats. The use of immediate and unrestrained violence becomes necessitated. It becomes morally acceptable to beat women, or rape women, or even kill women and children. This is true, if men and women were truly "equal". Women do not actually want "equality", because women are inferior, mentally and physically, in the realm of violence and direct competition over resources, including the control over women sexually, and access to their womb. When men have control over this, it is called patriarchy.
There is one stupid bitch, on this forum, who is very protected, against her own stupidity. And if my "hand cuffs" were removed, if I didn't have to self-censor my thoughts, then she would break down into tears, over my "true" opinions of her. It would be too negative or mean or hateful, when I have no emotion put into my judgment. If a woman is a whore, and acts like a whore, and has sex for money, then why am I "hateful" to tell her what she is, and why she is? Why am I "hateful" for pointing out the embarrassing truth?
It is because truth is very shameful, and this is made shameful, by an underlying Judeo-Christian dogma and set of morality, that these faggots refuse to let go of. They are attached to it, to its shame, to its guilt, and will never let go of it, even if it means dying for it. History repeats. The best answer is to adapt, control, and manipulate these morons, by understanding their morality, the protections in place within it, and how it repeats itself through genealogy. Then, you can begin to "self censor" in a way that is individually productive, but socially illegal.

This begins the possibility of a "thought crime", and this English based 1984 forum full of censorship, is a perfect place for this to begin. If you think the "wrong" thought, then you will be punished, by various degrees, and in various forms.

[reasonvemotion]

There is one stupid bitch, on this forum, who is very protected, against her own stupidity. And if my "hand cuffs" were removed, if I didn't have to self-censor my thoughts, then she would break down into tears, over my "true" opinions of her. It would be too negative or mean or hateful, when I have no emotion put into my judgment.

You hate because I "see" through you. I see the type of men you truly are and I tell you. This is why you want the hand cuffs off, you want to punch your way through a paper bag. You don't realise, it won't change a thing. You are who you are.

Daddy's disappointments.

Go back to your sheeple women partners.

If a woman is a whore, and acts like a whore, and has sex for money, then why am I "hateful" to tell her what she is, and why she is? Why am I "hateful" for pointing out the embarrassing truth?

To assume is the worst possible mistake on a philosophy forum. You can offer no proof. Yet you have "proved" many times Satyr/Atthet, neither of you are "philosophers".

At your worst, misogynists and at your best "parrots".

[Atthet]

You hate because I "see" through you. I see the type of men you truly are and I tell you.

I'm not the one who married a Jew, divorced him, for his money. And you really want to discuss "lying", honestly? Start with being honest to yourself, coward.

[reasonvemotion]

Reasonvemotion:

To assume is the worst possible mistake on a philosophy forum. You can offer no proof

Give me proof!

[Atthet]

You bring up a good point, allemotion, your claim that you "know" me and "see" me. How? You're a woman, and you see emotions. You don't see or understand reason, logic, thought, all the basic ingredients of philosophy. So, how do you "see" me? Do you see my thoughts? Do you know how I define them? Do you know how I perceive the world, or you? Do you accept that I see you as a tool, and that all you are to me, is a means to an end? Do you recognize power, and how powerless you are, as a woman?
Do you want to lie some more, about yourself, about others? Start with you, let's talk about lying. Let's talk about selling your body, like a whore, for money. Did you "love"? Isn't love a lie?

Love is a lie, allemotion.

[reasonvemotion]

To assume is the worst possible mistake on a philosophy forum. You can offer no proof

Do you see my thoughts? Do you know how I define them? Do you know how I perceive the world, or you?

Your perception of the world is written repeatedly on this Forum.

Have I ever said my ex husband was wealthy? Have I ever said I married him for money? They are your assumptions.


Prove that I married a man for money. Prove that the man had money.


In reality I am a poor woman, with no money, struggling to survive. Dumped by my husband for another, all alone with nothing to my name. Dependent on welfare, living from week to week.

Disprove that.

[Atthet]

You're lying, allemotion. That's what you excel at. You convinced your ex-husband that you "loved" him, didn't you? When all you really wanted, was his money? Let's talk honest. Let's talk truth. Isn't this what you wanted, honesty, truth?
Or is it only "true", when it flatters you, and puts you in a positive light?

Isn't it only "true", when it gives you a warm, fuzzy, heart-fluttering sensation of embrace and affection?
But when a shiver runs down your spine, a chill down your back, and dread and hopelessness send you into shutters and convulsion, then this is "false", isn't it?
I'll give you a hint, because I like you, I want to help you. Lie.
I'll give you a hint, and I'm not going to tell you why I'm helping you.

Your body, your instincts, your nature, your biology, is programmed. Your brain is programmed to deny reality, in the face of fear and "negative" emotions. Your brain is programmed to embrace "reality", when you get all those "positive", loving emotions. Your brain is selective, and opposed to "truth", except when it suits you.
Bias, subjectivity, fallibility
Allemotion, noreason

[reasonvemotion]

Quote:

To assume is the worst possible mistake on a philosophy forum. You can offer no proof

[Atthet]

Do you want to talk about lying or not, allemotion? Are you at your limit already? You can't handle philosophy, since you can't handle these questions honestly, without lying, to yourself first.

[reasonvemotion]

Many people believe lying is a bigger problem today than it has ever been. A Time magazine cover story concluded, "Lies flourish in social uncertainty, when people no longer understand, or agree on, the rules governing their behavior toward one another." Maybe social uncertainty abounds because we are a mixture of Kantians, virtuists, and utilitarians who share no common ground. More likely, the problem is that too few persons adequately consider any ethical perspective when facing a situation that tempts a lie. Either way, it seems that the solution to our dissatisfaction begins with acknowledging the value of ethical reasoning and ends with a commitment to follow through with what we determine is the right thing to do.

[reasonvemotion]

I have asked you, to prove or disprove your accusation and so far nothing has been offered. Which leads me to conclude you have no case to base your assumptions on.

It is a simple request. Give me proof, or look the fool you are.

[Atthet]

You want me to prove that you divorced your ex-husband?
Did you not say just that? Or, do you admit lying? This is simple.

[reasonvemotion]

Atthet:

You want me to prove that you divorced your ex-husband?

No, you said and I quote

Atthet:

I'm not the one who married a Jew, divorced him, for his money

and I am asking you to prove this assumption.


Give me proof, that the man I married was wealthy. You would not know that and you cannot prove that.


It is all in your head. Given the deprived background you come from, anyone would be wealthy by your standards.

[Atthet]

You slipped a little bit, allemotion. Your mistake is in thinking I value wealth. You accuse me of something you are guilty of. Wealth is valuable, to you, not me. My will to power is toward other avenues, like knowledge, information, and wisdom. Money means very little to me. Information means more.
You've exposed yourself, and your fear.

You fear living in depravity, why? Be honest, quit lying. Why do you fear poor people? Why did you marry a Jew, as a gold digger, except for the money? Are you a lover of money?