>It is a basic philosophical concept of Justice and Morality and Rationality that you cannot destroy what you do not own. You cannot destroy what you have not built yourself. Everything you've inherited, your freedoms... your freedom of speech, your freedom of association, your right to vote, separation of church and state. All that British Protestantism fought for for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, you do not have the right to give that away. To sell that, to destroy it, because you did not create it, it is not yours. It is something you hold in trust for those who come after you. All of the glories that were given to you by your forefathers are not yours to give away for the sake of moral posturing and five seconds relief from being called a racist or bigot or whatever nonsense comes up when these topics arise in conversation. You do not have that right, you do not own your culture, you do not own your freedoms, they were given to you. Handed to you by the bloody broken fingers of your elders and what your responsibility is is to do what they did and attempt to expand and extend those freedoms. Not to destroy them out of a misplaced, paranoid hysterical girly woman fear of being criticized according to politically correct religiosity. YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT, IT IS NOT EVEN A CHOICE YOU HAVE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgJVV9hD5yY
This man is beyond based. It must feel terrible watching your home country literally collapsing
>>73859610
dude weed lmao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwjAZD9icLY
>>73859610
Stefan Memeneux is based.
RIP Britbongistan.
I'm so sick of seeing this basketcase's face on /pol/ and all the notanargument memeing that goes on.
He's got a very relaxing voice and he looks like Randy Couture, but most of his ideas are Alex Jones-tier. I also get the feeling like I am watching an unstable person whenever I watch him talking.
>your right to vote
But I thought he was an anarcho-capitalist?
>>73859610
Memeux does it again, give him your single dollars now anons.
>>73859965
what the fuck did you just say?
>>73859965
1 ?
>>73859965
1 fucking dollar?
I have not seen a single argument in this thread.
>>73860012
>>73860048
>>73860072
Kek, are you the anon from the other thread with the based Memeuxs?
>>73860107
Not an argument
>>73860164
>Not an argument
Not an argument.
>>73859917
NOT
>>73860193
Not an argument
>>73860164
maybe i shitpost a lot so its possible
>>73860234
>>73860269
pic related
>>73859965
>not an argument
>>73859610
Molly is going to melt the fuck down when hillary gets elected. ;^)
>>73859917
>He makes me feel bad feels
>>73860269
Leaf, Not an argument.
>>73859917
Yeah we get it you like socialized medicine and nigger dicks.
>>73860402
>>73860428
>>73860305
not even close to an argument
>>73859610
>It is a basic philosophical concept of Justice and Morality and Rationality that you cannot destroy what you do not own.
Should not, he must mean, because obviously they can. The problem is the people he is rhetorically addressing this to don't share his notions of justice, morality and rationality. It really sucks a giant nut for him that the world isn't as he'd like it, but throwing a tantrum won't help.
Anarchists of the 19th and early 20th may have thrown tantrums, but they also threw bombs. I'm not endorsing it—but hey, they tried.
>You do not have that right, you do not own your culture, you do not own your freedoms, they were given to you.
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
In closing, I feel obligated to point out that nothing he says here is...an argument.
>>73859610
why does /pol/ talk about literal nobodies like maddox and this guy?
>>73860305
Yes you are, nice anons, keep them coming, I'm going to start collecting all the rare Steffs.
>>73860193
>>Not an argument
>Not an argument.
Not an argument
>>73859917
not an argument
>>73860485
>multi-quoting
>disavowing arguments
not an argument
>>73860492
>Freedom Main Radio
>biggest philosophy show on the planet
>nobody
It's like you're trying to formulate an argument, but are simply incapable of doing so.
>ONE
>>73860584
>It's like you're trying to formulate an argument, but are simply incapable of doing so.
Could you expand upon that?
>>73860584
>assertion of popularity
Not an argument.
>>73860584
SJWs would be impressed with a whopper like that
>>73859610
Sound like common fucking sense to me.
>>73859610
>not a single britbong comment in the whole thread
They must feel conflicted
>>73860680
>Could you expand upon that?
Not an argument
>>73860690
Not gonna argue a non argument.
>>73860734
>>73860584
You seem to be mistaken that you have formed a stance on which you can challenge my point unfortunately, that is not a legitimate stance on which you can challenge my point on
>>73859610
He has been losing his shit the last couple of videos. I cant wait for his video for when Britain chooses to stay in the EU
>>73859610
>society before individuals
is he becoming a commie?????????
Not an argument.
>>73859917
Nah, fuck you. You might not like tradition and freedom in you cuck nation, but sane people do. Fucking leafs. I swear you guys piss me off.
>>73860853
>>Could you expand upon that?
>Not an argument
Not an argument.
>>73860798
>tfw you're so depressed you simply cannot formulate any kind of argument
>>73860980
>is he becoming a commie?????????
Based on the OP's quote, he's more likely to take up ancestor worship.
>>73860980
>white society
can't possibly be commie, they prefer muds
>>73860798
It's because the national way of dealing with shit is to pretend it isn't happening and operate at a community level.
And then anyone under 25 will try to use 'wit' and take the piss out of other countries to cover up their deep cucking.
Moving to the American south in a year. The last uncucked place on earth.
/pol/ is actually stupid enough to like this guy?
He advocates people separating from their families on the grounds that you didn't voluntarily choose to be born.
>>73861159
go to bed tunderf00t
>>73861159
NOT
>>73860922
You have mistakenly assumed that your thesis is backed by the weight of those dubs, but I will gladly inform you that they have been checked, and cannot be used to support your hypothesis.
>>73861154
Get a hold of us if you come to TN, we /pol/ bar meetups on the regular.
>>73861159
DO
YOU
SUPPORT
THIS
MAN
GETTING
SHOT?
simple question
Also, not an argument.
>>73859768
oh god that was so fucking funny.
>>73861210
Here is my argument:
Stefan Molyneux thinks people should separate from all involuntary relationships, including familial ones, simply on voluntarist principle. Therefore Stefan Molyneux is a fucking idiot.
>>73861266
Yes.
>>73859610
Didn't he have a similar message in another video, about European leaders receiving the efforts of past people like a set of fine china, and whether they have the right to break them?
>>73861301
Not an argument.
>>73861288
>remaining in abusive relationships
Does Jamal rail your wife too?
>>73861154
>Moving to the American south in a year. The last uncucked place on earth.
You'll be given several firearms as housewarming gifts.
Not kidding, either.
>>73861288
he also said 60 trillion times in that 10years old video that it was his view and you dont have to listen to him
the man made 1000s of video of course some are going to suck.
>>73861154
Gonna go out on a limb here and guess you've never hopped across the pond for a visit, eh? The South is the prolapsed, dripping fish-stank cunt of the States, my man. You don't live there unless you can't get the fuck out.
I mean, there are a few nice suburbs, like in just about everyplace, but it's generally poor as fuck.
Don't go to the South. I care about you, brother. Don't do it.
>>73861288
Seen here: non-arguments.
>>73861366
>You'll be given several firearms as housewarming gifts.
You'll fucking need them.
>>73861091
doesn't really matter since from lolbertarian point of view it's all the same and being called a commie is probably the worst insult for people like him( which is hilarious on its own)
>>73861366
Man, I can't wait to move down there myself. It's probably going to be Texas or Alaska, I currently live in Illinois for college, and it's run by morons.
>>73861504
nah being a communist is the 3rd worse thing you can be on this planet after a murderer and a pedophile
>>73861413
>liberal faggot from new england detected
>>73861470
Your mum isn't an argument.
>>73861555
>alaska
>south
k bruv
>>73861579
i bet it sounded witty in your head
>>73861702
whats third then
>>73861660
Consider the following:
NOT AN ARGUMENT.
>>73859705
hes canadian
>>73861762
Being Canadian.
>>73861693
>Texas or Alaska
Not an argument
>>73859610
>hes starting to show the signs to go full autocrat
nice, only a few more pushes guys, then he will cause lolmillenials to go full /pol/
>>73859917
>>73860486
Both of these. Whenever I hear this guy talk, I tend to agree with his points, but hate his arguments for them. I also hate him calling ideas he doesn't like "not an argument".
No, they are an argument, you just don't like them, or think they don't live up to your standards of morality or rigor. At least call them bad arguments, you faggot.
Take his point here. I agree that people SHOULDN'T destroy their liberties. But I fully disagree with this notion that they don't have a choice [obviously they do, because they are] and also this notion that they don't own their liberties. Clearly they do, because they're giving them away. There are few people I distrust more than those who try and frame the argument so as to exclude other viewpoints from the onset, and this guy does that all the fucking time.
Its not enough that he be right, other arguments and beliefs must be inherently "impossible", despite existing.
>>73860980
seems closer to tribalism desu. He doesn't like tribalism as he's outlined in a video from a while back which basically outlined how every non white race is tribalistic and how the non tribal aspects of white culture allowed western society to succeed.
But the man is watching his homeland be ripped apart economically and culturally so I can totally understand him resorting to tribalistic thinking
>>73861586
Look, pal, I got nothing against the people down there, but whoever is running the place is doing it on a Federal tab and badly. If it weren't coming out of the leather cunt in my back pocket, I'd have less reason to care.
I wouldn't wish that place on anyone either way.
>>73861850
Not an argument.
>>73861479
No, he won't. They're mostly for fun.
>>73861850
>No, they are an argument, you just don't like them, or think they don't live up to your standards of morality or rigor. At least call them bad arguments, you faggot.
Not an argument.
NAME 1(ONE) ARGUMENT
>>73861266
I was actually thinking about this today, and yes.
Yes I do.
>>73861910
Yes it is an argument, you cum-slurping shitposter.
>>73860584
I always thought it was Free Domain Radio
>>73861850
>>73861832
>>73861823
>>73861803
>>73861798
>>73861785
>>73861762
>>73861702
>>73861693
>>73861660
>>73861586
>>73861579
>>73861555
>>73861504
>>73861479
>>73861470
>>73861413
>>73861372
>>73861366
>>73861349
>>73861346
>>73861320
>>73861301
>>73861288
>>73861270
>>73861268
>>73861266
>>73861236
>>73861228
>>73861210
>>73861204
>>73861159
>>73861154
>>73861147
>>73861091
>>73861070
>>73861066
>>73861061
>>73861032
>>73860980
>>73860953
>>73860922
>>73860912
>>73860853
>>73860798
>>73860796
>>73860734
>>73860690
>>73860680
>>73860643
>>73860584
>>73860567
>>73860520
>>73860508
>>73860492
>>73860486
>>73860485
>>73860480
>>73860428
>>73860407
>total lack of arguments
>>73861798
He was raised in Londonstan
>>73859917
sorry, but actually not an argument
>>73861949
you are a faggot because you like cocks, and since that is the primary requirement of being gay, ergo you are in fact, a faggot.
Hello. Where are the arguments?
>>73861929
Where do you live, bud? Because you couldn't pay me to drive around down there without packing. Look, I'm not saying it's Caracas, but it ain't Augusta, neither.
>>73859610
>>It is a basic philosophical concept of Justice and Morality and Rationality that you cannot destroy what you do not own.
but ownership is an exclusively western concept that must be destroyed for a utopian future :^)
>>73860486
>The problem is the people he is rhetorically addressing this to don't share his notions of justice, morality and rationality.
Not an argument. Also pic related. Pls die Postmodern scum. :3
>>73862063
>living in a nigger-infested yankee cuckville
>projecting that onto the south
k, keep me posted
>>73861268
i lost my shit
>>73862107
>People have different ideas from me!
>Clearly its because they're irrational and/or evil!
This is exactly the kind of tyrannical thinking this asshole is supposed to be against. The people who say "There must exist an objective morality" tend to always believe that
1. Their morality is it, AND
2. Its obviously so, AND
3. All other moralities are not complex alternative value-systems, they're pure evil.
TLDR: Tyrant scum fuck off.
>>73862229
Not an argument.
>>73862137
Shit, son, sorry to leave a boot print on your pride. I'm sure the stain will come out with a good steam-cleaning, but I think the smell if there to stay.
>>73862278
Please explain to me what the fuck IS an argument then Ahmed?
>>73859768
>the very first question
>"I think of you as a father figure"
Holy shit what am I listening to? I get the feeling this guy is jerking it as he's talking to him... like he has posters on his wall of Stefan. Le Ebin Trollin? Super cringe.
>>73862137
Oh my
is it the cousin-fucking stupidity or just plain denial that leads to this type of delusion?
>>73861978
Is that stack of yous the length of the cock up your ass?
>>73862398
Kek, you need to watch the one about the guy who bought his Asian hooker girlfriend a cow.
>>73862107
Postmodernism is recognizing that other people might not share my opinions or be interested in my justifications? Golly gee wiz, mister, college sure sounds easy!
Must be nice—go through life, just call anyone who doesn't think quite like you evil and wrongheaded. Way to lay down your burdens, champ! You show those professors!
>>73862229
No. Its called Universal Truth. Thus its not something someone can "choose". Truth is Truth, regardless of your feels.
>>73859768
>It ends with the caller desperately shouting indecipherable hippie babble while Stephan is hanging up on him
Beautiful
Funny though how every single drug addict thinks they've figured out the entire universe but they can't ever seem to articulate what they mean
"n-no dude everything made sense when I was high, Im so deep" - aka, you're mistaking pleasure for some kind of feep epiphany. That's why even the most intelligent and articulate of druggies can only come up with "d-dude love, lmao"
>>73862370
Not that.
>>73862621
All moral systems no matter how complex or elegant rest upon unproven axioms. You can make up the most beautiful ideologies imaginable if you just assume for the sake of argument that a particular value is the Good-In-Itself.
Virtue ethics starts by assuming eudaimonia is desirable/good.
Utilitarianism by assuming the greatest pleasure/quality of life for the greatest number.
Deontological by assuming duty is more important than any outcome.
All moral systems are dependent upon axioms, and these axioms are asserted not by reference to some state of affairs, but by the stated goals of the moral agents who created them. There is no moral system that can withstand someone simply denying the fundamental axiom the moral system is based upon.
I'm not worried about "moral relativists" nearly as much as I am about moral objectivists who think they have it all figured out, and are willing to come breaking down my door to make sure I'm living in a "moral" fashion.
With all due kindness, fuck off.
>>73861978
not an argument
>>73862587
Not an argument.
>>73859768
>tfw Terence McKenna, Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, Alan Watts, and Carl Sagan are all dead
>tfw no one today seems capable of maturely standing up for responsible drug use
>they are either raving crackpots, religious gurus, or dude weed lmao degenerates
feels bad man
NOT
>>73862789
No by all means, explain to me how "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong." is not an argument.
Because I'm pretty sure that's the dictionary definition of a fucking argument, and 99% of the shit Stefan says isn't an argument, actually is an argument, just not one he agrees with.
>>73862621
Problem with that, if you'll pardon my interjection, is actually getting people to subscribe to what you'd call Universal Truth. If folks won't agree to it, it ain't worth much. Steffy doesn't just claim he's got the real juice—he claims it's the only drink there is. Obviously, it isn't.
>>73862821
"I can deny the truth so there is none!"
This is not an argument.
>>73862821
People can have disagreement and Truth can simultaneously exist. Disagreement isn't de facto absence of Truth.
>>73861159
>you should stay in contact with your abusive family because it hurts the feelings of someone you don't know on the internet
every time
>>73862901
You can start arguing now, m8.
>>73862821
>>73862909
>it was real in my mind
No. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
>>73863001
kek
>>73862821
congrats for knowing what you're talking about.
someone give me an example of an objectively true axiom and I'll eat my words.
>>73860480
just the first one senpai
>>73863089
OP is a faggot.
>>73862949
Make a single argument for morality that isn't based in mere assertion, personal or collective. Go for it, bromeostasis, I'm quivering in anticipation. Until then...
>Not an argument.
>>73863020
Bother, you're sitting here saying that yourself. Prove your morality.
>>73862949
>>73862956
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that all ethical systems, rest upon axioms.
All human decision-making is the result of evaluative reasoning, whereby we judge the comparative worth of two or more objects. Through these decisions, we form a formal or informal table of values, with what we want most at the top, and what we want less as primarily means to what we want most.
All moral systems are like this. Moral systems can not be "true" or "false", only consistent and inconsistent.
Because if you say "X is moral" and I ask "Why?" eventually you have to reach a point where the only reason is "Because I say so, because X is Good In And Of Itself"
And if I say "Well I don't think X is Good In And Of Itself" you have no possible argument to convince me that your ethical system is the true and real one.
You people call your ideologies "The Truth" when they're based entirely on "Muh feels" with a rationalization plastered over it. Its the most autistic thing I've ever seen. People don't call their political ideologies "the Truth" and act like other political systems are pure evil, why the fuck do they act like competing moralities are?
If you can accept that political systems are human inventions designed for human purposes, you should be intelligent enough to realize that moralities are the same exact fucking way.
>>73863138
>Make a single argument for morality that isn't based in mere assertion, personal or collective.
Telling me I have to debate you on your arbitrary terms is not an argument.
Not an argument xd lol
>>73863214
>People don't call their political ideologies "the Truth" and act like other political systems are pure evil, why the fuck do they act like competing moralities are?
First day here?
>>73863292
Its not arbitrary terms. Go on, explain what you personally believe morality to be, while only making reference to a state of affairs.
Please, disprove 300 years of philosophical tradition by deriving an ought from an is, right here in this thread.
Or, take the route Nietzsche took, and realize that morality being subjective is no barrier to it being implemented, any more than politics being subjective is a barrier to states existing.
>>73863343
Yeah debated it right after I said it, but you get my point. People are capable of conceptualizing politics as a spectrum of alternatives, but for some reason people lose their fucking minds when you try and tell them morality is the same way.
A spectrum of competing alternatives.
>>73859610
Slight overreaction but yes if we don't do something in the next few decades we will be fucked. Bonus points though, leaving the EU won't stop third world immigration. Leave the EU because like FIFA it's corrupt as fuck.
>>73863292
I'm not the one who called 'the truth' universal or objective, guy. That's your cross to bear. Either you demonstrate it, or admit you're a bullshitter by not doing so. I'm gonna be fine regardless.
>>73859917
Can you give even one example?
>>73861983
Before it was Londonstan.
>>73859610
it's not his final form yet. be patient family
>>73863214
You completely contradicted yourself.
First you said morality is based on reason. Then you said it's based on muh feels.
I agree it's based on reason, also tradition and religion.
If you think science has an answer I would be intellectually curious and probably highly amused at your evidence.
Secondly, getting back to the point, we can all agree a Good course of action exists in opposition to bad or evil action, whether we recognize it or not.
I find it suspicious that as soon as Stefan started becoming more nationalist, all you see in these threads is "not an argument". Almost as if people want to stop any discussion of his viewpoints.
>>73863502
>w-why can't we just have a dialogue??
Because, you're not making any arguments
>>73863214
>based entirely on "Muh feels"
What about those based upon the feels of God and Jesus Christ?
ITT: not a single argument.
>>73863465
exactly, he knows what it was like but now that is completely falling apart from the inside, he's starting to feel the pain.
>>73863502
Most people like him, I just like to meme because its funny. Stefan is based as fuck.
>>73863571
ONE
>>73863214
>And if I say "Well I don't think X is Good In And Of Itself" you have no possible argument to convince me that your ethical system is the true and real one.
This is literally not an argument for your assertion that moral systems cannot be "true" or "false." You can deny or be unconvinced by a true axiom.
>>73863380
appeal to philosophical tradition...not an argument. Plus it's not as though you cannot find philosophers who would not vehemently disagree with you within your "tradition"
>>73863557
Religious feeling?
>>73863617
DOLLAR
>>73863477
I didn't say morality is based on reason, I said moralities are based on exercises in evaluation.
You're still looking at this as "Morality exists, and its a list of Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots"
I'm telling you that there is not one morality, but dozens, all over the world. I'm also saying that any argument you make in favor of your morality, rests upon me accepting its premise.
If you said "Its morally righteous to save 1000 people by killing 1", and I disagreed, how would you prove me wrong?
You would do so by assuming that there was some higher value we both shared, and that by appealing to that, you would convince me by pointing out the contradiction.
For example, if I was for abortion you would say
"Abortion is murder, murder is bad, therefore abortion is bad" and since I agree that murder is bad, your argument would probably be efficacious, unless I denied that abortion was equivalent to murder, whereupon your argument would be proving they are in fact equivalent.
But what if I said "Murder isn't bad". What then? Well I know what then, you'll say "Well everyone knows murder is bad"
You see what I mean? All moralities ultimately rest on assertions. Whether those assertions are legislation from your will, or based on raw emotion, or "common sense", all moral philosophy is posturing. You are assuming that we share some common ground, and that by exposing a contradiction in my morality, you will convince me to turn to yours on a particular issue. But if there is no common ground, then you have no argument to use.
And the more formalized the two value-systems, the more staunch the ideologies, the less common ground shall exist.
And I'm so sick of all this complex metaethics being thrown under the rug because simple minded ideologues such as yourself think someone explaining the nature of morality means I'm advocating mass murder and mayhem. Its childish.
>>73862821
>>73863214
>.t babby's first existentialism
>>73863214
tangential point:
>Moral systems can not be "true" or "false", only consistent and inconsistent.
Are moral systems formal systems? If so, Godel says it's impossible to formulate a moral system that is both complete and consistent.
rare molyneux do not steal
Daily reminder that Stefan Molyneux would be completely okay with Somalians homesteading an unused ancient forest in Sweden as long as there was no State for them to use welfare.
Daily reminder that Stefan Molyneux believes in "free will" which is a nonsensical concept.
Daily reminder that Stefan Molyneux believes in the non-aggression principle and that you should be able to abuse animals on your property without anyone being able to physically stop you.
>inb4 not an argument
not an argument
Would it break the NAP to shoot a man before throwing him out of a plane?
>>73863617
FUCKING
>>73864132
it would hurt a lot
>>73864020
Any evidence for this?
Seems like he's been pretty race realist lately
also NOT
>>73859610
It is a basic philosophical concept of Justice and Morality and Rationality that you cannot destroy what you do not own. You cannot destroy what you have not built yourself.
No it's not Stefan, you failed to prove that with UPB, remember?
>>73863847
How do you justify being good?
>>73864132
If I made an argument, would you die?
>>73864202
>any evidence for this?
do you not watch his videos? in a ton of his race videos he will say things like "look i would love if we could be post-racial and anyone could live where ever they want, but the state blah blah spanking blah blah.
>>73864208
I don't. My personal "morality" is what I desire is Good, what I don't desire is Bad. This is not some absolute truth, its an assertion I make of my own will.
My interpersonal ethics are simple. Reciprocity and tribal loyalty. To my friends I pay my debts and make sacrifices knowing they would do the same for me, to my enemies I show spite, and to everyone else I show a mix of ambivalence and general benevolence.
But that is not some cosmic law, it is my own decisions, formalized for the sake of existing as a tribal animal.
What's my solution to people with alien values [EG: Mudslimes?] Ignore them or fight them, I don't have to be in alignment with some cosmic force to hate people who despise me.
>>73864208
How do you define good? What does it mean to justify? Is it always right to be good? Why do communists drink only pure grain alcohol or distilled water?
>>73864298
Yeah he says shit like that in his older videos, sure
But, for example, the very subject of this thread is him lamenting the fact that London is being flooded with mudskins
>>73864208
much of our morality is derived from innately programmed instincts. We evolved them because it improved our species' fitness.
You could argue that we ought to align our morality with this basic instincts as closely as possible, since they are the closest thing we have to "objective truth."
But you could also argue that we, as thinking beings, ought not to be defined by our animalistic tendencies.
>>73864375
You might be pleased by this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat#In_game_theory
>The tit for tat game theory is an expression in the mathematical area of game theory, relevant to a problem called the iterated prisoner's dilemma. It was first introduced as a strategy by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod's two tournaments, held around 1980. Notably, on both occasions it was both the simplest strategy and the most successful in direct competition.
>>73864467
I would say that biology prevents the creation of truly novel value systems by culling value-systems that are not competitive, but I maintain that from a metaethical perspective, no value system is better or worse, except within the confines of another value system.
Which isn't to say I approve of all value systems equally. I'm still going to fight for me and mine, and for my own will and way. I don't need to be cosmically right to fight for what I desire.
And that link is very interesting, and fits in large part with what I think on interpersonal and international relations. The only difference is that I'm more open to conquest and imperialism if you can get away with it.
Though even there I find myself wanting to be benevolent after you win. I find too much gore and repression distasteful.
>>73861850
The logic behind his reasoning if I am to assume is that a right only exists if it's guaranteed by some force or entity capable of defending it.
>>73861798
He's ours he was born here
>>73864711
>I maintain that from a metaethical perspective, no value system is better or worse
I'm one of the few ITT who wholeheartedly agrees with you on that point.
I think the idea that one's beliefs and behaviors might be arbitrary is deeply unsettling for most people. No doubt this is because "arbitrary" is taken to imply "meaningless," which is misguided but understandable.
>I'm more open to conquest and imperialism if you can get away with it
Why is that? Is it our nature to seek the conquest of others? I guess I differ from you here.
>>73859705
He's Jewish. England is not his homeland
>>73865061
Strife drives innovation. All strength is the result of necessity. All virtues develop in hard climates and degenerate when they are no longer needed.
Temperance as a virtue only exists to maintain health in a state of abundance.
Strength only exists with constant exercise.
Intelligence and social behavior evolved to aid in survival.
To deny the fundamental reality that this cosmos is founded upon conflict and built upon strength born of necessity is to deny life itself. That doesn't mean I want all existence to be a 24/7 free for all, but it does mean I'm more open to conflict for conflict's sake.
>>73865061
>>73864711
I like you guys, you can intelligently explain why you are moral relativists, although I disagree with you, because I believe objective morality is derived from God and natural law. I would like to find an explanation only using natural law, without the appeal towards God, but it's complicated topic.
>>73865213
He was born in Ireland, Tyrone.
>>73865410
Interestingly enough, I was a devout virtue ethicist/natural law theorist before I became a moral relativist. The realization that my complicated value system was based upon a single irreducible axiom was the insight that led me to changing my moral beliefs.
>>73865492
Interesting, I hope I don't suffer the same fate.
>>73865688
Heh. You act as though I've suffered some sort of decay.
>>73859705
Implying Britain is not your home country, implying its not mine, implying its not Australia's home.
>>73861964
you're right and it would've taken him 2 seconds of googling to find that out
>>73865321
I can dig that. The way you phrased it is more in line with the image I posted above. I'm on a daoist kick right now so I view dualism -- that is, contrast -- as essential and precious. Conflict is absolutely necessary for progress, but so is a measure of peace. You can make lots of progress fighting an external enemy, but not much progress if your society is reduced to infighting (as we are seeing today). Conflict is never between multiplicities, only between unities at various scales.
>>73865410
There is absolutely nothing wrong with adhering to a certain value system simply because it makes the most sense to you, or even because it is the most intellectually comfortable. Personally, I have rejected my former atheism in favor of a diffuse pantheism. I can't justify my beliefs with reason, but neither do I see much need to. They bring meaning and order to my view of the world.
>>73866007
>Conflict is never between multiplicities, only between unities at various scales
Explain this. What does it mean?
>>73866007
>my former atheism in favor of a diffuse pantheism
My beliefs above really only apply to morality, not any other field of inquiry, so I'd look down on this.
>>73862893
hes fucking gay? Makes a lot of sense now
>>73863847
hahahahaha wtf this is pure bullshit.
>murder isn't a sin because fundies are hardliners
meanwhile your moral code is: there is none because there is no such thing as moral good
>>73859610
>>73863847
Would you say morals are just doing the right thing? But what if the right thing to someone else, is different to another. Eventually you will have to wonder, what exactly IS the right thing? The right thing for you? or the right thing for me? Whats is your stance on this?
>>73866217
>The point
>The Andromeda galaxy
>Trump Moon Base and Casino [opening 2024]
>The International Space Station
>Your head
>>73866335
thanks i forgot to save this one
>>73866346
That is actually literally my point. There is no such thing as "the right thing". There is no cosmically validated code of conduct.
The "right thing to do" does not exist. There is only what you choose to do. Values are not discovered, they are created.
>"But Anon, if that's the case, why not murder and rape everything?"
Why the fuck would I wanna do that? Seriously there is no combination of values I can even come up with where rape and murder is the most efficient means to achieving them.
>>73866391
A. not an argument
B.
>the more formalized the two value-systems, the more staunch the ideologies, the less common ground shall exist.
and also
>ye olde "fundies have only circular reasons for their morality" claim
>>73866492
>"But Anon, if that's the case, why not murder and rape everything?"
because you'd get your shit pushed in by non heathens
>>73866142
I haven't found the best way to express this yet. It's still a little unformed in my mind.
But it's pretty clear that meaning exists across many layers. For example, here's a binary string: 010101. 0 and 1 are yin and yang. But if you look closer, there is no 0 and no 1; just pixel values on your monitor. But look again, the pixel values are encoded in binary. Thus is characteristic of how yin and yang express themselves at all levels of abstraction.
A person can be a "unity," just as much as a town or a nation can be a unity. But these can also be "multiplicities," i.e. things in conflict with themselves. In a war, you perceive two unities battling each other. But if you zoom in on each nation, you will see that they no longer look like a unity, but a multiplicity. They suffer from internal strife, anti-war protests, fearmongering, etc. If you zoom in again, you will perceive each ideological faction as its own unity, etc.
You can also zoom out, and see that the two warring nations comprise a multiplicity. And you can zoom out further and view them as a unity: humanity.
A nagging question: is there a "maximally zoomed-out perspective?" And if so, does it perceive unity or multiplicity?
None of this really matters to the discussion at hand. Just musings.
>>73859610
has this man named the jew yet?
>>73866583
1. I really hate this "not an argument bullshit"
2. You clearly don't even understand my point. You laughing at my argument doesn't make it any less true.
Because you cannot derive an ought from an is, all moral systems [of which there are MANY] are based upon certain axioms. In other words, purely on someone's say so.
Crack any ethical book since the dawn of time. They all start the same way. They assert that some value or values is Goodness itself, and then from there extrapolate this long elegant ideology that touches every corner of human experience purely by process of deduction.
Then someone two continents over does the same thing, only with different premises, and thus a totally different ideology.
>>73861579
only one of those is 'bad'
>>73866719
You have to look even farther out, and achieve this insight.
Realize the truth of "anatta". There are no fixed ideas. There is ONLY phenomena, and abstractions created for the purposes of categorizing phenomena.
"Unity" and "Multiplicity" are themselves merely words used for the categorization of phenomena.
Once you realize that most concepts are not hard essences, they are symbols created to capture phenomena in buckets, to simplify, to reduce, to make comprehensible, to make useful, many things become clear.
For example, many people ask "What is love? What is truth? What is justice?"
The reality is that those arguments are not arguments over essence, but over semantics. Which of their various concepts deserves the right to be called by that particular name and sound.
Or else they are arguing over which of their ideas is the most moral, the most good. But we already know how that line of argumentation lies.
>>73866335
this is what I'm gonna post when I encounter a turkroach
>>73862962
>you should cut contact with your own blood because they hurt your feelings
Hmmm
>>73859917
>>73859768
Anyone made more screencaps of his reaction faces yet? Plenty of good new material here.
>>73866335
What video is this from? Turkey becoming part of the EU?
>>73867002
ok, now we hit upon the most recent development in my worldview.
In the Buddha-mind, these concepts are indeed phenomena. They are arbitrary. They serve a purpose, but the purpose is strictly relevant to human beings, with our limited consciousness. It is only through such concepts that we can make sense of our reality.
The general religious attitude seems to denigrate this mode of being. It suggests that we ought to view matters the way God views them (or in the case of Buddhism, we ought to view matters "as they really are," without the fetters of attachment).
I think this is valid, but I offer a contrasting attitude: namely, that we ought to embrace our limited nature as human beings.
For example, humans are tribalistic beings. By and large, we are simply not capable of merging into an orgiastic utopia. In a more generalized sense, we have preferences. We play favorites. And I think it is precisely this aspect of our nature that makes reality interesting. Without these quirks, life would be uniform, static, devoid of drama.
I think we ought to embrace our failings, rather than pretend to be something we are not.
Would you really prefer to live in a world where everyone was Buddha? I prefer the advaita vedanta view that everyone is a unique and perfect aspect of Brahman, even if they don't know it.
>>73863541
Saving this rare Molyneux
>>73863599
>Most people like him
>Stefan is based as fuck
Most of us don't like him for being a self obsessed narcissist e-beggar. Some of his ideas are good, but he's completely blue pilled on women "N-not all women are like that!", and unironically believes in a form of anarchy.
Also he gets weird about raising kids and has clear issues regarding his mom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ha4ea53UGI
>>73867629
I prefer neither. You are falling into the snare of believing that the 'traditional view' is valid and good, and that we by choosing this path have somehow fallen short of it.
The reality is that this is not a question, or a test, it is a statement.
Reality is phenomena, to the individual. What enters through the sense-gates, and what is abstracted from them, and nothing else. This is the "world". Our abstractions lead us to believe [I would argue correctly] to believe in an objective world we all share. So I would say that both phenomena and causality are objective.
However the concepts and words and symbols we overlay reality with are not reality, they are the products of our minds. That does not make them imaginary, it simply makes them what they are.
You are caught in the rut of wanting to believe that the local morality could indeed have been true and cosmic, but that it is a fault of us that it is not so. Or that the morality would be true and perfect, if not for some failing on our part. Or that it is possible for a universe already pregnant with inherent Essence to exist in the same cosmos as linguistics.
The reality is that phenomena is characterized by its lack of essence. Everything is contingent, conditioned, impermanent systems of arrangements given names for the sake of utility. The reality is that values are created, not discovered.
I do not look for some cosmic justification, and neither should you.
>>73867340
Yes?
You're an adult, it's your choice to stop talking with them.
>>73859917
A LEAF!
>>73867903
>local morality could indeed have been true and cosmic, but that it is a fault of us that it is not so
I can see how my post implied this, but it is not my belief. "Truth" and "perfection" are my enemy! I distrust anyone who claims they have attained either one.
I believe strongly in the "Middle Way," at least insofar as I believe that the middle is where all the action happens. Perfect, eternal creation is not so different from complete non-existence, just as zero entropy is not so different from maximum entropy. Permanence is not only unattainable, it is undesirable! Impermanence is the mother of meaning. And here yin and yang pop up again, in the duality of permanence/impermanence.
Unfortunately, it's getting too late for me to continue this discussion. I appreciate your perspective on things. I will reflect on what you have written.
>>73868540
Also, a short story you may enjoy: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/smullyan.html
>>73866723
he claims he IS a jew
>>73865426
Molyneux seems like the only tolerable part-Jew, even if his heritage prevents him from naming the Jew. Your reasoning is wrong though, all the pakis born in Britcuckstan are not "British."
>>73859610
It's genuinely sad to watch him slip further and further into the redpill, yet at the same time immensely satisfying.
>when you find a new rare moly
>>73859610
>It is a basic philosophical concept of Rationality that <my subjective beliefs>
