You guys are the most cancerous humanity has to offer. The irony of all of this is that the people throwing punches at everyone are oblivious to the fact that they are the direct cause of every problem in the world.
The fact that we have the nohow and thus technology (that can't be made commonly today due to money) to unify everyone into a system that relieves the baseless discrimination by automating literally every human labor aspect of our lives and not doing anything about it /despite/ you being utterly fixated onto a piece of technology developed by a group of people with a dream to unify the world,
and the fact that you literally refuse to understand that we can completely change the entire face of the Earth and human value system into an orderly one that UNDERSTANDS human behaviour and /why/ you are behaving this exact way right now in /pol/ with your bigotry, nationalism, "like what i like or i hate you" mentality,
is to me the stupidest, most contemptible and despicable thing I can think about you guys. You are by far the stupidest bunch I have ever witnessed.
You can expect the "A FUCKING LEAF" idiocy to slobber out of their mouths like a mental patient as though they think it actually means anything before any discussion of real value begins. Such primitive "your soil sucks mine is better" concepts that are comparable to pre-cavemen mentality.
Do you realize how stupid all of you are?
A
Suck a dick breh
>>71794601
FUCKING
>>71794669
FUCKING
>>71794729
GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE INCOMPREHENSIBLY STUPID
>>71794601
I only read A FUCKING LEAF but it probably sums up your shit post perfectly.
>>71794601
>nohow
>nohow
nohow
>nohow
nohow
>nohow
nohow
>>71794601
Your soil doesn't have 7,000 nukes or the best Air Force on the planet, so I'm pretty sure my soil is superior.
>>71794998
>>71795013
>>71794766
Leftist Canadians? Wait, I'm being redundant.
>MUH TECHNOLOGY WILL CHANGE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN NATURE AND PROBLEMS THAT STEM FROM THAT NATURE
>nationalism just comes down to some freud jew psychoanalysis complexes.. bickering over land...heh...conservative cavemen *tips liberal arts degree*
>>71795226
Wow, you provide such eyeopening insight into the mind of someone who can't depart from preconceived political notions.
Of course, being the naive idiot you are, you will assume that I identify with an established -ism by matching 1 criterion of it to one that I identify with. Of course. It's all that I can expect from cavemen.
>>71795282
>bickering over land
>bickering over pride
>bickering over "mine is better and yours is not"
You're telling me that's not what it is? Enlighten me, O Intellectual!
>>71794601
>Many words but saying nothing
You do realize trying to pontificate outside your grasp of English is readily apparent to everyone, right?
>>71794601
I stand with you brother
>>71795809
>Many words but saying nothing
Brace yourself for it. Are you ready?
Maybe they do say something but you are too stupid to understand them.
Maybe, just maybe, I didn't use enough words as concise language tends to omit things that you might overlook.
A whole bunch of add-ons to a main object in literature can be confusing, I know. Memory and English structure may not be your strong suit, but don't throw punches for your ineptness as you have done throughout your entire ancestral history to present day.
>>71795991
Fuck you spic. Youre the only cancer here
This entire thread is cringeworthy. Teenage pseudo intellectuals are the worst. I can see this kid sitting in his parents basement, with a bag of Doritos in his right hand and a thesaurus in his left. Derailing this shit.
>>71796433
Latina pls
>>71794601
>>71796073
1. As long as human beings have disagreements, about life, about values, about anything really, they are going to try and do something about it. They do this through Reason, through Conflict, or through Separation.
2. Because all values are subjective and all value systems rest upon unproven axioms, this means Reason cannot resolve all value differences. All arguments in favor of a moral system can be rejected by simply denying the inherent assumption. This means all large scale value differences will eventually be resolved through Conflict or Separation. In short, by destroying Separation, liberals make conflict inevitable.
3. This also means that any plead of global unity is the same thing as denying the right of other value systems to exist in any form. It is in effect, enslaving all mankind to the dominant ideology of the time, and the time changes all the time.
4. Human beings are tribal animals who naturally form into discrete groups based on race, family, ideology, etc. Trying to deny this tendency is the same as denying evolution and biology. The simple fact is that until genetic engineering is mastered, social engineering will be utterly impotent in enslaving all mankind into a single super tribe, because such a thing would require rewiring the entire system upon which human social interactions are based. Everything from gangs to country clubs are formed based on these principles.
5. Differences in groups are what drove human evolution. Those groups whose social policies and value systems were too weak to survive eventually always died out as they were conquered and assimilated by other, stronger systems. In addition to this, the separation of nations allowed for different social systems to be tried in the first place. Every empire was a laboratory, that performed social experiments that let us know what works and what does not. Destroying those laboratories and that conflict will lead to stagnation.
TLDR: Go home shill.
>>71796433
Let's tap into more of your generalizations that have no basis on truth:
>teenage
No.
>sitting in his parent's _____
No.
>bag of Doritos
Not even close. The saddest part about all of this is that I cannot do anything whatsoever to convince you that you are as dumb as a hamster.
>>71796433
rollling
>>71796433
Rollerino
>>71796543
>They do this through Reason
>They do this through Reason
>They do this through Reason
What reasoning is behind "My sports team is better", a phrase similar to the crap slathered everywhere on this board?
>>71794601
>leaf
do you realize how irrelevant you are?
>>71796562
Be quiet, little boy. You don't want mommy to hear you banging on your keyboard. Thanks for the fresh pasta though, OP.
>>71796760
He fucking numbered his statement so you could follow them more easily and you still managed to fail.
>>71796794
This is museum-worthy. A sight that generations must into the distant future will get to see that such a mindset and reasoning capacity was even possible.
>>71794601
This frostback is getting really uppity.
>>71794601
Everyone look at the pitiable "last man" and laugh.
>>71796854
What's dangerous about that post is that by numbering it as they did, they gave a pretense to you know they actually knew what they were talking about.
This person is a replica of what I'm describing, so they stem from a form of "reasoning" that compares to that which I am describing. What you need to understand is that there is a "system" that liberates mankind from these "value systems" that are based on opinion and not the objective theory of science which /all/ cultures can relate to with one another by common understanding.
He cannot imagine a world where understanding human behaviour leads to an understand of how to fix problems, but being the "tribal animal" that he is, you cannot expect anything more than primitivity, or stupidity, in his "reasoning".
>>71796760
Its not that your sports team is better, its that its your sports team.
Human beings do not start with a social web that encompasses all mankind, they start with one that encompasses themselves and their immediate families and neighbors.
Human beings formed into tribes like our ape ancestors because it was the most convenient form of social organization. We formed into reciprocal arrangements, formed social systems based on loyalty and shared goals. We created values and social conventions and rituals to separate Us from Them. This was the foundation of Mankind. Even chimpanzees do this. Its in our genes.
All movements forward in social history have been attempts to expand the tribe into a larger tribe. Nations combined small tribes into a People or under a State, so the shared loyalty, customs, and goals of the tribe become absorbed into a new tribe, until eventually the tribe gave way entirely to the city, and the kingdom, and the country.
Eventually, Empires formed which extended the basic human social group thousands of miles beyond its roots in the savannah, taking the same fundamental genetically imprinted principles and expanding upon them.
You take old identities and absorb them into new ones. Religions also do this. Instead of being, or primarily being, of this town, or this city, or this country, you become a Roman, or a Christian, or an American. E pluribus unum. Of many, one.
What the cosmopolitans are trying to do, is create larger social groups, not by extending the tribe, but by destroying it. Instead of conquering the world in the name of Liberalism and Social Justice, and seeking to replace old tribal ties with a single new one to pull their civilization forward, they destroy the tribal ties, hoping that in the end we will all be a single group.
[cont]
>>71797333
It does not work that way. All you accomplish by going down that path is leaving people uprooted, and leaving us vulnerable to more organized tribes. In short, by ignoring the Darwinian reality of the situation, you have made mankind more fragmented than ever before.
>>71796433
bless me lord
>>71796433
Muslim!
>>71797294
So you're basically denying the notion that there are several competing moral system all of which are ultimately resting on unprovable axioms. Yet there is no doubt in my mind that this is true as far as moral systems go and if this is acknowledged then there isn't much wrong in what he said afterward.
I would say the burden of proof is on you to show that you've found the ultimate moral system that does not depend on non demonstrable premises.
>>71797547
Fuck that, reroll
>>71797351
look at germany to see the proper way to unite people
>>71794601
Say what you want, socialism has failed.
The o nly "socialist" nations that exist today do so because they are running on the fumes of capitalism. I'd tell you to just wait for the inevitable collapse of Europe, but you'll probably argue in favor of it, proverbially going down with the sinking ship.
The United States will never be like that, and Canada will reap what it sows. Good luck, my good man.
>The irony of all of this is that the people throwing punches at everyone are oblivious to the fact that they are the direct cause of every problem in the world.
How about all non whites fuck off back to their shit holes and leave us the fuck alone then? No ? That would be impossible wouldnt it ? Thats because non whites in the western world are human leeches off the white mans success. truth hurts doesnt it shitskins? 90% of white people hate you and want you to fuck off so please do
>>71797647
One more
>>71794601
low tier shitpost from the leaf
get fucked and piss off queer
>>71794601
So what you're saying is it takes a colossal buffer of wealth and technology to hide the incredibly large differences between the races and genders. That's fine as a starting point.
What you're missing is the mistake I made when I was still BP'd: the system is still lightyears away from being good enough to fully erase those differences and the impact they have. It's not that humans are incapable of ever getting there, it's that we're so far away still that we can't afford to keep lying to ourselves.
>>71797552
You really think the burden of proof is on me to get you to understand why people want to break down the barriers between countries to find common ground and stop the fighting? This is basic morality--a concept which I think even you can understand as well as everyone else--which holds an "axiom" that you are not to kill anyone, let alone hurt anyone, for if you did, why can't they do the same to you? This is a basic moral question which leads to the same answer from everyone at a young age. Some, while knowing killing is wrong, go ahead will huge killing sprees anyway in an attempt to achieve their "ideals".
Why don't we just stop the fighting altogether and, through the sheer power of scientific understanding of how societies function, and more importantly how people on this board "think", go on to ideals which benefit the well-being of everyone? The burden of proof is really on me? Or are you just stupid?
Almost 90% of any anti /pol/ posts are terribly weak and are a direct result of non white insecure shitskins trying to justify their inferiority. if your so great go make your own country great. yea thats impossible because you and your people are human shit. fuck off and die you cancerous leech fucks
>>71796433
Gonna fap to whatever I roll
>>71795615
I'm sorry if I care about my people more than you, Canuck.
I don't hate other groups or cultures, but I like you projection. Definitely shows the validity of your argument, if there even is one. Ad-hominems make it even better.
Why are you here if you're not willing to debate? You come in here insulting literally everyone and projecting your pre-conceived stereotypes of people on this board, and for what?
Were you thinking in the back of your mind that you could blog all of your anger towards people of different opinions and it would make you feel better about yourself?
Why? I see no sustenance in what you are saying.
>>71797974
If you can't understand why Humans don't stop fighting eachother, you can't understand anything Humans do as you obviously do not understand how Human nature works.
>>71797929
>I have a huge missing gap in my understanding, not realizing that understanding (scientifically) is directly correlated to peace.
>I also think that wealth matters.
>I also think that technology, without understanding it, "hiding" problems is truly better than understanding how the technologies and human behaviour "works" and resolving these problems altogether.
>Rather than make a leap forward in change, let's just perpetuate problems that will never solve themselves and hope that someday things even out over time.
>>71797974
Yes the burden is on you, because you are ignoring two simple things
1. Value systems are much more complex than you think
2. People disagree with you on how society should function.
3. Some people want their own societies, separate from yours, because on principle they want to self-govern.
4. And most importantly, you do not have absolute power over the globe yet. By weakening western civilization and enforcing 'diversity' here, you are not doing a damn thing to Africa which is still 99+% black African or the Middle East which is still 99+% Middle Eastern, or Asia or South America which are the same. And large parts of these continents are illiberal.
By weakening the civilization that produced liberalism, all you are doing is killing liberalism. Your being immensely impractical. If you really wanted a single world state, you would do it by
1. Stopping identity politics in favor of a single unified identity as human beings
AND
2. Recognize your real enemies, Islam and authoritarian regimes. Instead, you morons make apologizes for the men who want to kill you, to instead focus on gamers, manspreaders, and the infamous "straight while male" who hasn't been priviledged in this country since the fucking 80's.
>>71798062
This is 1000% true. All the anti-/pol/ shilling reliably has name-calling, strawmanning, and a non-argument to back it up. Among all the shitposting, they usually get destroyed with logic and statistics.
Yeah, I hate apemen.
They're violent and killers.
Like Cain and Ham.
>>71796433
Roll Tide
>>71798345
>I think greater knowledge of the natural sciences will make everyone convert to a very specific version of a western ideology that only really came into existence over the last fifty years or so, and only took off in about the last twenty.
How can anyone actually be so naive? What, do you think learning about chemistry will suddenly make Jihadists into leftists? Are you insane?
Well done, Canada.
Australians are officially on suicide watch. Step it up m8s.
>mfw didn't even read OP
>>71798370
four things* got carried away in my rant.
>>71798370
I'm saddened by the fact that you gloss over the surface of things and never get into the rooted cause(s) of what these things are and why they exist.
There is literally nothing I can say to you to understand them because you do not have the mental capacity to, and I'm saying this in the sincerest way possible without any drug-induced delusion whatsoever.
You are only on the surface of these problems. Once you understand how flexible human nature is from the moment you are born and how the environment shapes who you are and how you think, you will never understand and continue to spew that numbered list of superficial crap. I think /you/ need to have a reality check. But how can you see it when it's so "hidden" from you?
>>71796433
rolling 1-5, fuck faggot leftist op
>>71794601
Differently abled canadian from a minority western liberal society thinks the rest of the world gives a shit about his 'we are the world' utopia. Dude, cut down Cola Cola commercials watching and go live to Sudan or Somalia for three months.
>>71797974
>You really think the burden of proof is on me to get you to understand why people want to break down the barriers between countries to find common ground and stop the fighting?
That's not what I said the burden of proof was about. You said
>What you need to understand is that there is a "system" that liberates mankind from these "value systems" that are based on opinion and not the objective theory of science
That's a thesis that needs to be demonstrated. Appeal to obviousness are nothing more than the admission that you are using those very axioms we are talking about.
It also looks to me like you are simplifying the issue. Moral systems are quite complex and while there may be some fairly obvious rules which manage to be be found in almost all of them, the fact never the less remains that many of them are mutually exclusive and therefore only one of them can triumph over a particular territory at any given time. You are, for instance, either in favor of gay rights or you believe that their behavior should be criminalized and regarded as deviant. Both of these standards cannot be applied at the same time within the same jurisdiction. Since anti-gay sentiment are often tied to a certain religious doctrine, proving the morality of gay rights would amount to nothing less than disproving the religion all together, at which point the only solution is phyisical conflict over control of the jurisdiction or separation of the groups adhering to divergent moral systems.
Many more such example can be constructed.
>>71794601
TL;DR lol
>>71794601
>>71794601
>all these posters responding to a shitpost copypasta that was posted in a thread an hour ago.
>>71798633
That was scary! Goosebumps.
>>71795128
>kudatah
Stfu Toronto you fucking fag
>>71795615
Settle down Justin
>>71798729
Infact it was the Canadian flag thread, go to it and you will see OP's shitpost, word for word
>>71798594
The human brain is immensely pliable, and human social organization is immensely pliable. However, what you are missing, is that there is a very large genetic component as well in much of our behavior first of all.
And second of all, this isn't about human group formation, so much as logistics.
Do you honestly believe that letting in millions of people who hold wildly different worldviews than us, letting them congregate in ghettos, bending the knee to them on social issues, and accommodating them in every respect, while at the same time mocking and destroying our own culture and heritage, is the right way to convert all these people to our ideology?
Of course it isn't. We are being conquered because you are too naive to realize that demographics exist, and scientific progress doesn't automatically mean liberal democracies with mixed economies.
>>71798679
I will nullify everything you said with the following:
You said
>I would say the burden of proof is on you to show that you've found the ultimate moral system that does not depend on non demonstrable premises.
I said that a moral system is "ultimate" if it is understood by everyone. You objectively understand that killing is bad. Don't tell me otherwise.
You post is trash.
"nohow"
lol learn to spell you raging turd burglar
>>71796433
Rawlin.
>>71796433
>>71798888
Again... I guess.
>>71796433
Lets roll out.
>>71798825
I cannot say anything to you. You are impossible, and impossibly stupid. Society really had its toll on you, didn't it? You've fallen into its allure to fit in and can't climb your way out.
>>71798842
Except that anon's post was entirely about the fact that the overwhelming majority of moral rules are not shared between moral systems.
Almost all moral systems are against theft, murder, and rape, because such things prevent a civilized society.
But what about birth control?
Or gay rights?
Or the role of women?
Or literally any issue that is actually debated in the real world?
Are you honestly going to tell me that your ideology is "ultimate" in that respect?
Do you believe that Jidahists suffer pangs of conscience when they fight for what they believe in with all their hearts?
Are you truly so naive that you believe EVERY HUMAN BEING already agrees with your ideology, or can be readily made to believe it, and simply does not know it yet?
>>71798982
Calling me ignorant does make me so. Provide an argument, or leave.
>>71798842
I "understand" many moral systems and therefore I would have to come to the conclusion that many of them are "ultimate", which is absurd.
Or by the word "understand", did you mean "adhere to", in which case your statement is logically equivalent to "a moral system is ultimate if it is adhered to by everyone", which amount to saying that morality is matter of convention and that the ultimate criterion of morality is the fashion of the moment.
I'm out.
>>71794764
LEAF
>>71799027
By the way, I read you and I feel like I read some of myself. It's uncanny as shit.
>>71799027
I believe that to make things as complex as you have only leads to more confusion, so I will go as simple as possible.
Morality - concerning and catering to the well-being of everyone.
We all want to live /simply/ well.
Anything that prevents someone from doing so, is not to be considered.
There is a world that is objective in the sense that common knowledge and agreement can be shared by all cultures.
This will allow for the moral "well-being" sought by everyone.
Simplicity.
That, what you just told me, is complexity, which explains why you are so so stupid.
>>71796073
If you aren't going to tell us in a concise manner that we can understand, why did you bother writing anything at all? That's pretty idiotic in itself.
>>71799233
Pure ideology. Most of mankind in the present era doesn't believe what you just said, and neither does most of mankind throughout history.
You're ideas are not objective facts, they are a personal philosophy. If you want to market that philosophy around the globe, you need to follow the rules of Darwinian selection, and have an actual strategy.
Simply assuming your ideology will be accepted by everyone in the world, when its not even accepted by everyone in this thread, is beyond naive.
>>71796433
rololol
>>71794601
>pre-cavemen mentality.
I know right?
I mean
It's 2016
>>71794601
me being mean on the internet cause some mudslime to blow up an airport?
>>71799233
>We all want to live /simply/ well.
See this is where you fail. You're using the word "well" as if it was a transparent term with a fixed meaning when it, in point of fact, is a word with a broad semantic meaning the definition of which is the whole preoccupation of the entire field of ethic.
No civilization in the history of the world has ever said that they did not want to live well. Not many of them at the same idea as to what "living well" meant.
>>71798545
>>71799351
Then you must agree then that someone has a moral right to come in and kill you for your beliefs at this very moment. So don't lock your doors, because to do so says that you understand objectively that you want and care for your and everyone-in-your-house's well-being to remain well.
You've just given morality a new definition, and denied self-evident, first-hand experience, and that is scary.
Morality is simple. The method for a happy, well-off world is simple. It's a paradox, but people who think socially, or rather complexly, are the furthest away from simplicity and its then not a surprise why no problem can ever be solved by you. Look at all of your -isms you've tried. Nothing is working, hey?!
>>71799622
Not only that, you can't just project general goodwill into the cosmos and hope that makes things better. Often people have competing interests, and helping one group or person hurts another. Or you can only help one while not helping the other.
And that is leaving out that most value systems don't even put OP's Last Man-esq "well being" at the top of their value system, they put something like Truth, or Power, or God or Beauty, at the top, with their own convoluted ideologies on how their social norms tie into their metaphysical and aesthetic ideals.
I hope you are not a shill for world government, I'm in favour of one ala star trek but most people seem too selfish to truly work together with their fellow humans. Attempt your global plantation and you will all and up hanging from lampposts.
>OP starts thread with that damn Harriet Tubman pic, like we haven't seen enough of that thing this week
>>71794601
I had this conversation with my neighbors once. They started throwing their garbage on my porch, which I think passes for the real life version of "A FUCKING LEAF". There's nothing you can do about the mongoloids.
>>71799664
I'm not arguing in favor of my philosophy, I am telling you that most people do not agree with your moral system. I don't know what your exact morality is, but it sounds like a variant of vaguely utilitarian humanism, but I can tell you right now most people have different moralities than you.
How do you plan on convincing them? You can't even convince me your ideas are the right ones, how the fuck are you going to convince the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Islamists?
Think man! You're literally breeding out of existence the only people who actually agree with you, and you're doing it to advance the cause of people who hate your ideas as satanic!
You can't just keep hoping beyond hope that one day everyone will wake up and convert to social justiceism and sing Koombaiyah, you need a fucking plan man.
>>71799622
So you're telling me that a simple statement as simple as "We all want to live /simply/ well" is wrong?
Did the word "simply" get you caught up? Of course it did, because you are complex.
Let me modify the phrase:
>We all want to live well.
Are you going to try and dispute this one too?
>>71799664
Ur gay
>>71799925
Nobody would dispute that
That doesn't mean we'll all be able to live well
>>71799925
>Questions that people have argued about and died over since the dawn of mankind are suddenly solved because some leaf on the internet says his ideology is self-evident to thinking persons.
Do I even need to call you naive by this point?
>this many newfags and shills posting on a tired copypasta thread
>>71794601
Haha dude get a life lmao
>>71799739
Forgot pic
>>71800012
Apparently not, because I've given morality the simplest definition you could ever conjure.
Let me try again, with the hopes that by going even simpler, that I cannot get any simpler:
Morality - concerning and catering to the well-being of everyone.
We all want to live well.
Anything that prevents someone from doing so is not to be considered.
There is an ideology that is objective in the sense that common knowledge and agreement can be shared by all cultures.
This ideology is the scientific method and logical reasoning of human behaviour and physical environment and its application to outdo unnecessary human labor (which causes disputes about money among others; straying from a well-being of well) and promote happiness.
This will allow for the moral "well-being" sought by everyone to live well.
>>71800372
>There is an ideology that is objective in the sense that common knowledge and agreement can be shared by all cultures.
ALL CULTURES DO NOT SHARE THAT IDEA OF MORALITY. ALL THE ANONS IN THIS THREAD DO NOT EVEN SHARE THAT IDEA OF MORALITY, YOU DUMB LEAF.
It doesn't matter how simple you make your ideology, when most of mankind does not agree with it in the slightest.
>>71800467
Do you agree or not that all cultures stem from what they believe is true? And do you not think that people base their morality from these fundamental beliefs?
>>71800557
I do not. The differences between value systems can not be chalked up to differences in knowledge. Your idea is that all morality is the same, and that all people want the well being of as many people as possible, and its only differences in beliefs that make them think otherwise. This is not true.
Most people do not want the greatest good for the greatest number. They want some good, for themselves and those close to them, and then ambivalence or hatred to everybody else. If they're feeling benevolent they may want good for everyone [but still taking care of their people first] and if they're especially patriotic they generally care for their people in addition to their immediate people.
Not only that, but what "good" means varies immensely from culture to culture. We do not all want the same things.
You are assuming that everyone agrees with your moral philosophy, or would were their scientific knowledge to expand. You are wrong. Morality is not a science, it is a collection of ideologies. Reason alone can not convince people that, for instance, the well being of the many is better then their own well being, or that of their family, or friends, or country. Such thoughts are based on sentiments, and cannot be uprooted by argument.
Rather than argue the above points, I want you to consider the fact that I am arguing with you at all. I want you to think, that many people in the world agree with what I am telling you, whether it is true or not.
And I want you to think about how current western liberal policies, are going to convert those people. Hope is not going to destroy radical Islam. Hope is not going to defeat nationalist sentiment that is as deep as men's blood. Hope is not going to make people believe what you believe.
>>71800372
So if you were the leader of the world and had all the power to make people submit under your will, what's your plan with people who do not agree with your vision anyway? What would be the punishment for those who would refuse to follow you, or those who would fight back against you? Re-education camps, imprisonment, death penalty?
>>71801024
He thinks teaching them chemistry will make them into liberals.
>>71800940
So you're saying that a culture that understands fame and personal identity (in a group of 1,000,000 people living in close proximity (city) and even more by technology (computer)) is not correlated to the value of being known and posting "updates" on facebook as though they are the superstar they want to be because you cannot attribute values to primitive knowledge of a given culture? If you understand the correlation, you must then agree that value systems are chalked up to differences in knowledge. Many tribes that dance around their fires to the tune of their Gods base their morality from their Gods and what they think they are.
I cannot believe you are this ignorant to the simplest concepts of sociology.
All cultures understand morality to be the same, that is why they treat one another with the same due respect as others in different cultures to one another in their same cultures.
Unifying this behaviour into one requires an /understanding/ common among all groups, and that can only be achieved by science because science is relatively objective compared to the opinions without any basis put personal wish.
>>71801078
So you think that I'm a liberal trying to project liberal propaganda?
>>71800372
There is always an elite power structure, and the globalists have abundantly proven that they do not give the first shit about the common man. Why should the common man acquiesce to losing his ability to obtain resources and to allowing additional mechanisms by which the state and the elites can deprive him of them?
To satisfy your utopian ideal? Piss off leftist scum
>>71801517
>So you're saying that a culture that understands fame and personal identity (in a group of 1,000,000 people living in close proximity (city) and even more by technology (computer)) is not correlated to the value of being known and posting "updates" on facebook as though they are the superstar they want to be because you cannot attribute values to primitive knowledge of a given culture?
Don't even understand what you just said. To the rest of your point, you are wrong. Moral opinions do not form purely on the basis of differences in knowledge. They form in large part due to differences in desire. At the end of the day, some people truly do not WANT what you are selling. In fact, most people don't.
Until you accept that other ideologies even EXIST, this conversation can not move forward. You will not convince Islamists to become liberals by teaching them physics. "Science" is a useless tool when discussing moral systems, because you can not derive an ought from an is. This is one of the simplest concepts in ethics.
>>71801796
>There is always an elite power structure, and the globalists
>We cannot change and that is why I will never let change happen.
>>71801560
No, I think you're naive, talking about issues you know very little of, and assuming your ideological enemies are easily defeated nincompoops, when this conversation alone proves that is not the case. If you can't even convince me to embrace utilitarian humanism, I'd love to see how you're going to convince the world's one billion Muslims to embrace it.
>>71801905
Yes, they do.
OK, let's use an example you are familiar with: 4chan.
Do you agree or not that there is a culture on 4chan? What do you think it is and what does it stem from? And don't tell me there isn't one, because there is.
>>71802125
No, they don't. And whether 4chan has a culture or not isn't at issue here, nor is me attempting to sum up its culture in a soundbite so you can attempt to apply historical materialism to it. Not all differences in ideology can be attributed to material conditions.
Your ideology emerged out of debate, argument, persuasion, and a very large deal of emotion and sentiment. So did every other ideology. It was not merely some calm rational process that developed because of the environment, and that would develop again were the environment duplicated.
>>71802325
Whether 4chan is a culture or not isn't at issue here? Of course it is, because it helps to show that culture is based from knowledge, a point which you seem to be eluding now.
Are you seriously diverting from the culture of 4chan by saying that it's irrelevant to our discussion? I'm prompting you to think for the first time in your life, and you simply tell me that it is not at issue here? What is wrong with you?
Let's go back, because its relevance is the greatest:
Is there a culture on 4chan? If so, what does it stem from?
>>71802325
I cannot believe how good you are at deliberately ignoring first-hand experience... You actually thought an example of culture relevant to our discussion wasn't at issue.
You are blowing my mind.
>>71801975
to be clear, I was addressing
>This ideology is the scientific method and logical reasoning of human behaviour and physical environment and its application to outdo unnecessary human labor (which causes disputes about money among others; straying from a well-being of well) and promote happiness.
You literally want the globalists to win, by removing the common man's ability to produce useful resources and acquire his own in return. This is not a recipe for happiness in any civilization that has ever existed. Small scale control by individuals of their own lives is important. How are you going to impose your utopian ideal without an authoritarian, globalist, top-down approach? By "educating" every person on the planet to accept your exact viewpoint?
You aren't, that's the simple answer. You don't understand history, you don't understand the female reproductive imperative and its effect on modern civilization, you don't understand the importance of diminishing, not increasing, the power of any globalist agendas, basically shut the fuck up and read more before you start trying to correct everyone
>>71802516
No. I'm not going to play along, because I know what you're getting at. You're going to ask me to describe the culture, and when I do so you're going to point to those facets of the culture that seem to have developed in large part due to material conditions [such as the concept of being anonymous lending itself to free speech], while completely ignoring the lion's share of culture that was formed purely through the interactions of human beings. I'm not playing along.
Ideology is not purely the result of conditions. You can have people with identical scientific knowledge, who simply want different things, and therefore have different values. The fact that I even have to argue that people have OPINIONS proves how naive and autistic you are.
You're not going to convert the whole world to liberal western culture just by giving brown people iPhones. It does not work that way.
>>71802728
No, you avoid this because you now that culture stems from understanding.
And to drive my point home, if everyone shares the same knowledge (which science has discovered so beautifully), we will all share the same values, and be on the same page as one another. This will allow us to achieve something I don't think your brain is ready to conjure. :)
>>71802816
now know*
>>71802816
>if everyone shares the same knowledge (which science has discovered so beautifully), we will all share the same values, and be on the same page as one another
Humans aren't machines you fucking hippie
>>71802816
It's important to note that the politics and money that separate one culture to the next must end for this to work because the lingering dispute of those ideologies will interfere with the pure knowledge and logic of science.
You now understand, I think. :) I can rest easy now. Best of luck!
>>71802816
Culture doesn't stem from understanding, it stems from
1. Human interaction. Human beings have interactions that assuming you don't believe in free will are semi-random and so nuanced that the idea of them repeating is nonsense
2. Human invention. Again, if you believe in free will its a unique process, if you don't its a semi-unique process. You can't predict when a great moral teacher or scientist or philosopher is going to come around and say something that just totally changes the entire culture because of his rhetoric.
3. Material conditions. Specifically in the case of values, the customs that allowed one to thrive in certain material conditions. For example a culture where danger is prevalent will favor courage, and one where knowledge is desired, scholarly activity will thrive, and so on. But in this case its less because of an identical understanding and more because of incentives [such as honor and social stature and material goods that make such moralities good adaptations to the environment]
Your idea, that learning about chemistry or physics, or stargazing, will somehow convert everyone to a philosophy that like all moral philosophies is based on SENTIMENT is ridiculous. You have no understanding of ethics, and no understanding of culture, and for that matter I'm tired of you insulting me and mocking me when I'm humoring what is probably just a troll. I don't have to take this from a fucking leaf.
I'm out.
>writes a wall of text
>not a single argument presented
Why are Canadians so fucking stupid? Why can't we just ban EVERYONE from Canada. Ban them all, for fuck's sake.
Ban them all and we will solve every issue in the world within a week.
