But you're still thinking about it like a reasonable human being and not an ideologue. — fdrake

It's funny you say that, given that your head seem so far up your ass it's coming out your mouth causing a paradox of implosion. You seem to be implying that you too argue like a "reasonable human being" - that's almost objectively laughable, by any standard. There aren't enough words in Latin and Ancient Greek combined to name the fallacies going on in this thread, let alone in your unintelligible rambles. Pointing out my own fallacious mishaps will add to this last point I’ll make in this filter bubble of a thread:

It should be obvious that rational dialog has broken down as a viable medium for solving political differences in the west, so it doesn’t take a genius to guess its replacement. I'll spell it out: v i o l e n c e. The US is vanguard in this respect, and I wonder how the outcome will shape the rest of the western world.

Venligste hilsner fra Danmark :kiss:

Our behaviour is relevant to ethics and what causes us to behave (that is, take an action) is desire. — Bert Newton

Here, for example, you seem to be implying the redefinition of ethics into something entirely is-based instead of the traditional question of ought.

Ah yes, 3 minutes into the video and Cuck Philosophy brings up Hume's Law. In defence of Harris I do believe he has a compelling argument against this. When pressed, Harris replies that, "human beings value wellbeing" and goes on to say that therefore we can have a science of wellbeing (the moral sphere) — Bert Newton

But that makes no sense. That's not the moral sphere in a traditional sense. The statement that "humans beings value wellbeing" is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. One still has to give reasons for why one ought to value what humans happens to value. To my knowledge Sam Harris has not been able to transcend an "is" to an "ought", and Alex O'Connor in the video you provided explicitly says that this can't be proven.

Harris adds that this is no different to our approach to any other science. Why study medicine? You have a headache therefore you ought to take pain relief medicine. But why? Why ought a human being take pain relief medicine? — Bert Newton

I have yet to be convinced by objective morality, so my answer is: there are no objective moral reasons to do that. We're doing it because evolution (through pleasure) says so. Gives existential angst, dosen't it? :)

It's like O'Connor's argument that we can say that it's objectively "right" for someone to do what brings them maximum pleasure, if you by "right" mean to stay internally coherent given that you're determined to act on your desires and what you ultimately desire is pleasure. It's still not objectively right to do so from a moral point of view. O'Connor seem to think that morality in that sense (aka the one that virtually everyone have used up until this whole ordeal) dosen't exist, or at least isen't meaningful. He says so about 35:00 into the clip. He wants to redefine morality to this new standard, and I think that's cheating.

No, there is no law in the universe compelling us to do those things (if you wish) and even if we removed them all and went back to living in caves still, the most fundamental value we would have left then is wellbeing. Making Harris' argument even stronger. If you look deeper you will find that wellbeing is inherently implied in the is-ought of these examples but few seem to be able to grasp the axiomatic ought. — Bert Newton

You're using descriptive statements about what humans value (and must value given their faculties) and then implying that that means that one ought to value that. It's not about not being able to grasp it, it's about there not being any evidence for your claim. It even seems to dictate that morality would disappear if all life disappeared, given that its origin is the faculties of sentient creatures being driven by pleasure, which of course would mean unequivocally that it's not objective - it may be universal for life, but it's still subjective.

I would ask you, if you take an issue with Harris' claims and Hume's Law: WHY ought you take medicine when you are sick? — Bert Newton

I have a problem with Harris' claim of objective morality. Hume's Law seems to do the trick of disproving Harris' claim of objective morality.

No objective moral reason has ever been proved, therefore my answer is that there dosen't seem to be any objective moral reason. If you want subjective reason I have plenty! :)


My main arguments:

1. Still no way of getting around Hume's law without redefining morality.
2. Even if we do so there seems to be no reason to stop at pleasure in particular - we desire pleasure to proliferate our genes, so instead of redefining morality to mean right by pleasure we could redefine it to mean right by proliferation of our genes.
3. Even if we concluded that one is better it wouldn't be objective morality, given that it depends on the form of sentient creatures that exist right now.

Let's discuss in good faith.

"Natural" and "unnatural" are just words, but words need to refer to consistent and non-contradictory things and relationships for them to mean anything or to be useful. We could use any terms that you like, as long as the terms are applied consistently. That is my point - that your application of the term "unnatural" is inconsistent with observations made of other animals. What is the relationship between humans and the world - natural or unnatural? — Harry Hindu

I agree with you that words need (or at least ought) to be used consistently and in an non-contradictory fashion, and I'm not saying that your analytical statement is an invalid one. It's valid just as the statement "all parents have children" is, but it still doesn't say anything descriptive about the world - the validity of the statement stems from the definitions entailing each other. It's really somewhat of a tautology. Your issue is that your statement doesn't refer to things other than what defines the words and their relationship. That's what makes your statement analytical.

You can read more about it here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/analytic-proposition

Chimps building rockets to space would be unnatural in that their biology doesn't allow for those types of behaviors. So "unnatural" would actually mean "impossible" or "imaginary". — Harry Hindu

Yes! That's exactly it. Given that your analytical statement dosen't say anything about the world, there is no possible world where you can be wrong. That's what I meant by your analytical statement being non-falsifiable, and that I want to describe the world. I've never claimed that I'm describing the world in a objective, perfectly true way. I'd leave that to the gigants.

If the processes that created humans and all other animals is natural, and the things that animals do is natural, and humans are animals, then what use is the word, "unnatural"? — Harry Hindu

This is exactly what I claim will happen when we look to the consequences of your non-falsifiable, analytical statement - that's all I've been saying.

If we discovered aliens that also have large brains and opposable thumbs and they also had instances of mass-suicide and practiced philosophy, would you then agree that those things are natural - as in natural behaviors given our biology? — Harry Hindu

This is where you've misunderstood me. I would think that they're unnatural as well! For example: if humanity went extinct and some population of chimpanzees evolved to be similarly intelligent to us now in, say 20 million years, and they started doing what were doing - mass destroying forest, forcing themselves to be sedentary even though they feel bad from it etc. - i'd be there calling them unnatural. I've been consistent on this, I've been consistent on my subjective understanding of naturalness lol

Why the fallacies?

1.

No. That was my argument - that humans have unique behaviors, but then I also showed that other animals do to, and that was a link that I tried to show in that humans really aren't different than other animals in that each species has unique behaviors that define it as a species. — Harry Hindu

That wasn't the argument you made, that's a blatant ad hoc modification. You said:

Again, you would be singling out humans for no good reason other than you believe that humans are somehow different from other species in having unique behaviors that define it as a species. — Harry Hindu

I responded by saying that yes, I do believe that humans have unique behaviors that define it as a species. If one reads your quote they see that you said "... for no good reason other than you believe that humans are somehow different from other species in having unique behaviors that define it as a species.". Common man.

2.

So saying that humans and other animals possess unique behaviors that define them as a species isn't saying anything about the world? — Harry Hindu

I never said that. I clearly stated which of your statements I was talking about. Why the straw man?

3.

That is my point - that your application of the term "unnatural" is inconsistent with observations made of other animals. — Harry Hindu

Where? Quote me being inconsistent with my view on nature as applied to animals. I've never even talked about what I believe makes other animals natural or unnatural outside of our discussion. If you can find any animals that go to space in rockets or mass-suicide with gas (obviously poisons gas), then I'll reconsider.

Then what is natural cant be anything and everything any other animal does. — Harry Hindu

Sure, I've never claimed to objectively know what's natural - quite on the contrary. I thought that was your position?

What scientific theory states that philosophy and mass-suicide are unnatural?

Other animals don't have unique behaviors that define them as a species? Are all of these behaviors unnatural?
https://www.science101.com/bizarre-animal-behaviors-prove-nature-metal/ — Harry Hindu

I don't know, and I never said that. I'm saying that humans have unique behaviors that define us as a species. You seemed to be doubting that. In my view the behaviors listed are natural in a way that sharply contrasts to, say, using a rocket to go to space. If chimpanzees started doing that I would feel the same way.

How is the statement that modern civilization is unnatural falsifiable? It seems to me that we are simply categorizing the world. It's just that your categorization isn't consistent because it is subjective, and it is subjective because you think humans are special because you're human. — Harry Hindu

No, seriously, you're not saying anything about the world. You said exactly that "Modern civilization is natural given that humans themselves are natural outcomes of natural processes.". Go through it step by step; you've defined humans as natural outcomes of natural processes, and then stated that very relationship.

If you actually think you're saying something objective about the real world, then give me a hypothetical, an actual change in the world whereas you're sentence would be falsified without redefining your terms.

Don't shoot the messenger, man.

Oh, be prepared, he has since changed his mind on that and is now in more agreement with Harris, as you will see. — Bert Newton

He's not arguing an objective morality standpoint. He is arguing for the existence of an universal, inter-subjective morality. That's why I asked you before:

Are you arguing for objective morality or a subjective one? — MadWorld1

*

What causes desire is the conviction of pleasure-at-the-end, what causes that is irrelevant as then you are going down a causal chain that has no meaning to the conscious experience: dopamine, nervous system, genes, egg and sperm, grandparents, chimpanzees, unicellular organism, the big bang. — Bert Newton

Sure. I never said that the axiomatic ought is valid, I just raised issues with the theory even when it's assumed to exist. And no, you can't just say "that's irrelevant" when it's obviously not. Why are you stoppning at pleasure? You could've stopped at desire in general, or at our innate drive to spread the genes in our genom. How has the latter no meaning to the conscious experience?! It's more of a prime mover than pleasure will ever be, it encompasses pleasure. It sounds totally arbitrary. That's why I wrote:

It seems to me that one must prove not only the validity of the axiomatic ought but also its nature. — MadWorld1

*

yes, the reason why we do anything is determinism but in ethics we are dealing with conscious states, good and bad, right and wrong behavior, and for that we only need to look so far as pleasure being the prime mover. — Bert Newton

You can't just redefine ethics and expect people to agree. You have to have reasons. As we've gone through you claiming that pleasure is the prime mover has no grounding. One must not forget that this theory makes gigantic claims that are very controversial, so one must give reasons proportionate to that. I'm not the one saying I've solved morality.

If you're interested in hearing critique of Sam Harris's view, and I think that's wise if we are to prove this theory, then I can recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI

One of the central anarcho-primitivist claims (embodied in the very name!) is that anthropological and paleontological evidence suggests that hunter-gatherer societies generally lacked imposed hierarchical structure and that individuals (even children) were free to act as they wished. Selfish or self-important behavior and attitudes were dealt with by the tribe shunning individuals who manifested such traits. — Janus

Interesting. I agree with the gist of what you're saying. I like the thinking that it lacked "imposed" hierarchical structure, because of course there's also innate hierarchies that are perfectly natural. We as most other mammals have them. I mean, could I child really set the brought home game ablaze every time and not be punished? When the tribe where to take an important decision of where to go next, did the children get a say as influential as the tribes chief? As long as anarchists oppose imposed, unnatural hierarchy and not the natural kind, then I'm all for it. I also fully agree that obvious or excessive selfish behavior would be shunned, which is kinda funny given that most of us in modern society are taught to be like that.

I'm very new to this, no expert. If you have read The Moral Landscape then you have a firm foundation, however I think Alex O'connor and Steven Woodford take it to a new level. Watch this presentation by Alex The Good Delusion if you're really interested in this, and will no doubt explain it better than I have. — Bert Newton

That's interesting, because I share Alex O'connor's critique of Sam Harris on this topic. I'll look at the presentation though! Thanks!

This is where you are misunderstanding.

Behavior, or "doing something", or "acting on a desire", is motivated by the belief that such action will give you the most pleasure (as opposed to other actions). Here's the point you need to grasp: — Bert Newton

I think I just disagree with you, if that makes a difference. And the point that people can be wrong in what they believe to be right - that seems noncontroversial. It's not so much that I don't grasp that particular point, it's that I don't see how it's relevant to the question of the axiomatic ought. That's what needs to be proven.

I would argue that we don't actually want to survive, we want to experience pleasure, survival just allows it. What about suicide? The selfish gene has failed there, but pleasure has dictated once again. Also, the selfish gene isn't actually selfish according to Dawkins, it can be very altruistic, it does whatever it can to survive. Dawkins actually regrets calling it that and prefers to call it "the immortal gene". — Bert Newton

Here then is the real part we're disagreeing on - I think you got it backwards. I mean, who's pulling who? The carriage or the horse?

I think the kind of pleasure you're talking about is an instrument for the proliferation of our genes, and I don't see how the opposite would be compatible with what we know of evolution. That's why I was confused, you seemed to agree with that point before.

If you by "surviving" mean our genes than that goes against what we know in modern biology. I wouldn't use science in that way in philosophical discussions if it wasn't for the fact that science seems central to the theory at hand. And in all do respect, Dawkins wanting to rename his book doesn't change the fact that genes are selfish in a very real way. For example, there is no denying that humans, like chimps, have innate tendencies to be hostile against foreign tribes. One can talk about how hostile we are versus how altruistic, but evolution is still the tale of particular collectives of beings (aka sequences of genes) fighting each other (even within themselves) and the challenges of nature for survival and proliferation.

Why then should pleasure be the axiomatic ought and not that, given that the latter gave birth to the former? It seems to me that one must prove not only the validity of the axiomatic ought but also its nature.

Funny you would say such a thing, I received a PM today from Outlander demanding that I “hush” because he fears that you are suicidal. — praxis

Aww, you're worried about me? Am I your daddy now?

Is that a hoax or should I be the one reassuring you? — praxis

Parroting again huh? Say it with me praxis: "Projecting my insecurities won't make them go away".

Because the why is involuntary, it forces the ought. There is no "what we ought to do", we are forced to act on pleasure, then the question arises, is this the best way to seek pleasure? — Bert Newton

It dosen't force the ought, it forces our behavior. But I mostly agree, maybe I misunderstood you before.

Are you arguing for objective morality or a subjective one? Because I accept most of the framework you're putting worth, obvious issues aside, but I also understand that there's no real reason - other than being programmed to think in that way by evolution - for me doing so. And when I realize that I could deny it, and people would have a hard time convincing me in the sphere of ethics that I really ought to do what evolution has programmed me to believe that I ought to do, I have a hard time buying the theory.

Really interesting topic btw. You seem knowledgeable on the topic, so do you mind if I ask for other books that I can read on the topic, other than the one by Sam Harris? I really think that if someone proved this theory it would be truly revolutionary - even more so then the scientific or industrial revolution.

Yes, but the tool the selfish genes adopt to do so is the pleasure reward. I think they're linked, if the purpose is to survive then it's wrong to kill (according to the gene). Pleasure means survival, harm means death. The only problem with the selfish gene though is that it carries this wacky and seemingly unnecessary thing called consciousness. We are not just "survival machines" as Dawkins puts it but conscious ones at that. — Bert Newton

Yes, that's exactly what I said; pleasure is a tool created by evolution with the primary purpose of proliferating our genes. But wait a minute! Accepting the survival and proliferation of our genes as the real axiomatic ought has huge implications. Then pleasure is indeed a tool, comparable to science although more woven into our reptilian complex, at our disposal. Then pleasure has instrumental worth, not intrinsic, and even a bad one at that. We could do much better through science.

Also, even if pleasure means survival (which it dosen't - survival means survival), that doesn't deduce that it's wrong to kill. Actually, you'll want to kill to ensure that your selfish genes proliferate - it's just another tool at our disposal. If earth has limited resources and our axiomatic ought is to proliferate our selfish genes, then inevitably there will be conflicts between different genes. There's a reason hate and we-and-them mentality has survived the test of time.

Even if we disregard the fact that genes (and therefore our axiomatic ought) are selfish and not altruistic we have serious issues. Let's complete the (not so valid) deduction we did before:

I We ought to proliferate our genes.
II Being on fire destroys and therefor hampers our genes.
Conclusion: We ought not to be on fire.

Now that's a proper deduction! The first premise is the axiomatic ought, so that one we don't have to prove. The second one can be proved through common sense as well as science. Our conclusion is valid.

Now let's try a hypothetical:

I We ought to proliferate our genes.
II Force impregnating women will proliferate our genes.
Conclusion: We ought to force impregnate women.

If you grant the plausibility of the second premise you see how irrelevant pleasure becomes, given that the women impregnated against there will will suffer. Even if you don't accept that premise in particular it should be obvious how proliferating our genes the most could (and inevitable will) be on the cost of pleasure.

A wave of cortisol is the feeling of anxiety. A wave of dopamine tells us that the belief we hold about our action is the right course. Brain states affect behaviour, right or wrong behaviour. Aren't we now in the field of ethics? — Bert Newton

No, I don't think so. Brain states affect behavior, not right or wrong behavior. If it does I feel like it needs further proof; extraordinary claims demands extraordinary proofs. I mean, right or wrong in contrast to what? What metric are you using? Pleasure? Why? We're coming back to the question of the axiomatic ought, which seems to be the proliferation of our selfish genes, not pleasure.

True. We could be talking about different things. You seem to be implying that mass-suicide by gassing is unnatural, as if because humans do something that other animals don't do that makes it unnatural. — Harry Hindu

Let me clarify: I'm saying that, in my view, what's natural can't be anything and everything humanity do.

Again, you would be singling out humans for no good reason other than you believe that humans are somehow different from other species in having unique behaviors that define it as a species. — Harry Hindu

I'm singling out humans because I am human. But yes, I definitely believe - I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt using science and normal categorization - that humans have unique behaviors that define us as a species. One example would be that we're the only animal doing philosophy on the internet.

This is my worry with your statement that modern society is natural: it seems non-falsifiable. You're not actually describing the world, you're simply describing relationships between words. You're making, using Kantian terminology, an analytical statement. I'm trying to describe the world.

That's an interesting thought. But what would the end-goal be in such a world? To become all-powerful? I don't want to mimic nature, I want to be enclosed by it and a part of it. I want to live the human experience. I'm aware that it sounds vague, but I really like the to put it like that; it emphasizes that, at least for me, we're not really human in this modern world - we're alien.

That sounds very interesting, I'll definitely look into it. I've been kind of ambivalent when it comes to anarchism; I like some of what I hear but the almost principal stance against hierarki and stratification of any kind seems unnatural to me - as well as a pipe dream. Granted I know little of anarchistic views.

Wild and crazy passionate erotic animalistic humans trying to get through life sitting at desks and wearing suits and being polite to one another. — fishfry

Well put.

Some of this arrangement seems to be fraying at the seams lately if you read the papers. — fishfry

You can say that again.

But that's part of the suffering too... — schopenhauer1

Going post-human?

stories need defending — praxis

Hush now, my child. Soon you'll be asleep again in the garden of safe space.

Damn, botching quotes is actually kinda fun. I finally understand why you're doing it.

That's the thing; I don't necessarily think that suffering is bad, it's not the suffering that gets to me. I feel like suffering can even be good in that sense, in a tragic sense, as something that cleanses your soul. It's really the alienation and loneliness. It's lifeless suffering, that's what it is. It's something cold, metallic, and static. I don't believe that everyone is doomed to feel in that way, it's not part of the human experience. I feel like we're going post-human.

The social needs are an invention of culture or at least lose their weight with time. — Heiko

I fully disagree with the former, but suspect you're fully right on the latter. You're right.

The thing you may then ask in this forum are if it is a bad thing that you do not care and basically care a sh*t about everything as long as you get your steak on sundays as that really is something existential. — Heiko

Yeah. I don't know man, I just feel so damn nihilistic. It's like Nietzsche said:

To lose firm ground for once! To float! To err! To be mad! - that was part of the paradise and debauchery of former ages, whereas our bliss is like that of the shipwrecked man who has climbed ashore and is standing with both feet on the firm old earth - marvelling because it does not bob up and down.

I want to stand on firm ground.

If your mental gymnastics were more entertaining I might engage with more of them, but I haven’t completely disengaged. — praxis

But you have, you know that. Otherwise you wouldn't have dropped every topic of our discussion to end up at

I don’t know what to make of your irrational aversion to narratives. Did your mother only read unpleasant stories to you as a child? — praxis

Big man praxis defending the utility of narratives with an ad hominem. It's really quite funny - and fitting.

And if you don’t want to dispute my assertion about the Trump administration favoring the rich and powerful over the working class that is your choice. — praxis

Clinging by the mast, boat sinking... Someone should play the violin. But seriously: why should I do anything when you've plainly ignored most of my points, and distorted the rest through selectively quoting me out of context and the like?

Read our dialog from the beginning, understand that you've been an incredibly rude, emotional and bad faith actor throughout. Oh well :)

I guess I do... I'm not saying my perception of it is objective, though. This is what I wrote to another person:

I’m afraid that the question "what is really natural?" is beyond the scope of my intellectual capabilities, so I won’t even try it. That’s why I asked for books that could convince me to think differently. At the moment I’m just seeing the world through the values I figure to be right, what to me feels instinctively true, and through that lens the modern way of life isn’t natural; multiculturalism isn’t natural, (excessive) individualism isn’t natural, genderless society isn’t natural, our sedentary lifestyles aren’t natural and so on. — MadWorld1

Although, if I may, I think your definition of what's natural - at least as stated here - runs into some serious issues. You seem to be implying that anything and everything humanity do is natural. Is mass-suicide by gassing natural? It could be that we are talking about different things and merely using the same word.

Well, that's what we are pondering. So far, people like Sam Harris have made a compelling argument for objective moral grounds. — Bert Newton

Yes, it's a really interesting question. If anyone solves it it would be truly revolutionary.

Harris uses the analogy of putting your hand in fire. Consider Humes Law with this example:

Your hand IS in the fire therefore you OUGHT to pull it out

One can see how ridiculous this is, the ought is inherent in nature, an axiomatic ought. Likewise, human beings don't have a choice when it comes to acting on the desire that they believe will give the most happiness, it's a neurological function of the brain; dopamine, serotonin, physiological functions. — Bert Newton

That's just it; it's a function of the brain, it's not in the sphere of morality. Take the deduction you mentioned. Firstly, I can't see how it's a valid deduction in the traditional sense, I can't see how it necessarily follows from the premise that you ought to pull it out. Secondly, why not go all the way? It's not just a neurological function of the brain to strive for happiness, that's a tool evolved to incentivize survival and reproduction in order to spread our genes. Isen't that, then, the real axiomatic ought?

I just can't shake the feeling that we're talking about why people act a certain way on average, or why we seem to have a kind of universal, intersubjective sense of at least obvious right and wrong, and conflate it with what we ought to do. To me these are different questions.

Very interesting topic.

It's indeed wise to disengage when you know you've lost. To some it might seem petty or squalid, but at least you won't be embarrassed any further. Dito for falling back on quoting me out of context and pitifully weaseling yourself out of your absurd train of thought, aka your response to the actual topic at hand.

This is false.
— ssu

So why would Madworld be inclined to vote for a candidate based on the criteria that they support late-stage abortion restrictions?

We need a better class of trolls around here. — praxis

You are quoting ssu out of context. You are either daft, sophisticated (se sofism)
or both. I'm afraid safe spaces such as this one and the accompanying lack of challenge has made you soft and your nerves fragile :(

No reason for self loathing really. — Benkei

r/whoosh-ception? We're three layers deep!

No sense of humour. Check. Obviously a girl then. — Benkei

Oh man, now I feel bad calling praxis unoriginal for saying "The r/whoosh continues. :yawn:", because, you know, the r/whoosh continues.. Unfortunately I'm a cis man, even white at that. Not many intersectionality points there I'm afraid.

So you're one of those happily oppressed types that want men to take the lead and can't handle the moral conundrums freedom hands to you so you prefer comfortable repression. Good for you. — Benkei

Benkei! You had my curiosity, but now you have my attention. Software upgrade or actual dissident?

Very informative post.

For some reason this isn't a hot topic in any Nordic country (I could be wrong, but I haven't heard about abortion clinics set on fire or the thing...) — ssu

You're right. I don't remember exactly, but the last polls I saw showed that around ten to fifteen percent of the population wanted to restrict abortion more than is. The topic is rarely if ever brought up on national debates and the like. And no, no burning clinics (at least where I'm from).

The r/whoosh continues. :yawn: — praxis

Come on praxis! At least be original!

My stating that I was parroting a narrative is indeed an admission of narrative recitation and proves your point, such as it is. Your reading comprehension is excellent. — praxis

No, that's not it. This is what you originally said:

So you hope for a Trump-like win in your country in ten years? Tax cuts for the rich, a judicial system further skewed to favor the rich and powerful, deregulation and the associated degradation of environment, a severely polarized political body, etc? Good luck with that. — praxis

You later claimed, as a counter to me pointing out that I never said that, that these assertions aren't controversial, and when I called your depiction a simplistic narrativ you said that

If anything I’m parroting a Trumpian narrative. He prides himself on cutting taxes, deregulation, installing conservative Supreme Court judges, and the like. — praxis

Can't you see how you're ad hoc modifying your claims to avoid my original argument? Trump priding himself in "installing conservative Supreme Court judges" is not at all (!) equivalent to him creating "a judicial system further skewed to favor the rich and powerful". It may be true, but you have to argue for it. You weren't parroting a Trumpian narrative, you did afterwords in an attempt to refute my point. If you think it through you'll see that it makes no sense.

You still haven’t disputed any of my allegedly controversial assertions, by the way. — praxis

What is there to even respond to? Your Trump derangement syndrome? If you calm down we can discuss the topic at hand, but you have to at least act like you're doing it in good faith. I made the original claim, and I have defended that claim.

No, you admitted ignorance of American politics. — praxis

I never did that, btw. Why the loaded language? Think of your chakra for crying out loud!

Just did a quick search and it looks like they’ve managed to reduce legal immigration by about 11%. Good enough? I assume you’re cool with bungling illegal immigration, appropriating billions of tax payers dollars (no pesos :sad: ) via executive order (because a minority support the effort), and the longest government shutdown in American history. — praxis

Not good enough, but it's in the right direction. Your assumption is wrong (who would have thought!). When it comes to the billions of tax payers dollars I don't know what the hell you're rambling about, and the last part is totally irrelevant to immigration.

Nuclear families in Scandinavia are disintegrating? Do you guys send your old folks to care facilities also? — praxis

Yes and yes.

Why do you think Trump would be more successful at this than Biden? But the more urgent question is why doesn’t Scandinavia have any restrictions on late-stage abortion? — praxis

I thought that was given, maybe I'm wrong. It's my understanding that republicans are more conservative on the issue of abortion. Of course we have restrictions, once again that's not what I said.

Wait... Are you Cathy Newman?!

No no, this is one of those manly men whose manliness is threatened by gays and trans people. — Benkei

Never said that. Ad hominem aside you're assuming my gender :(


Is this to much for you? I think I'd better stop. Let's do this: you respond, I respond to your respons and you get the last word. I don't want to spend all week "arguing" with you.

No need to apologize. Be as hostile as you like. We’re both adults. — praxis

Oh, come on praxis! Both r/woosh and projecting at the same time? Must be some kind of record.

If anything I’m parroting a Trumpian narrative. He prides himself on cutting taxes, deregulation, installing conservative Supreme Court judges, and the like. — praxis

You're literally changing the spinn on what you said before, literally proving my point in the process. What did you think I meant by "Some of it, sure, but you're obviously spinning a narrative (that is controversial)"?

No, I would like to know why you would support a “leader” like Trump in your country rather than a leader like Biden. — praxis

Yes, exactly! Now you're getting it! As I said before I would rather have Trump as president than Biden, even in my own country (if I had to choose).

It basically boils down to my moral framework, which dictates a bunch of conservative stuff that I feel Trump would better facilitate; decreasing immigration, consolidating the nuclear family, restricting late-stage abortion and the like. And that's not a soulless NPC narrative, mind you, that's simply what I want to happen. For me it's very much a cultural issue.

Surely Trump is more conductive in these regards?

It is a fact that this works against the interests of the working class in many significant respects. — praxis

That's disputable, although I tend to agree with you. It's my understanding that massimmigration is even worse for the working class, so that plays a role in the decision.


Should I go on? I feel like I should give your shot nerves a break.

Oh goody, I'm just dying to figure out why you'd vote for a racist. Oh wait, no, don't care. — Benkei

You can't catch them all! ;) Cared enough to write though. Oh well, I'll settle for my good friend praxis over here.

They’re not controversial. You haven’t contested them yourself, in fact, which lead me to believe that you accept them. — praxis

No worries! No, I didn't accept them. I also disagree with the notion that your depiction of Trumps policy is noncontroversial. Some of it, sure, but you're obviously spinning a narrative (that is controversial). There's nothing inherently wrong with narratives, but for a more nuanced discussion it's often not the way to go. Also, I did actually put forth a counterpoint.

Do you want to know why I would vote for Trump if I where an american?

I do believe this is a hostile query, good Sir, shame on you. — praxis

Sorry, my bad :) Gotta keep those chakra pure and open!

You’re contradicting yourself and in that way I can see a Trumpian affinity, but in reasoning, you say that you’re not a fan of that which you would choose to move towards. — praxis

That was your assertions, not mine. Do you know what a contradiction is?

Why so hostile? It's not good for your chakra, you know.

Genes propagate when the carriers survive, merely. Our species is a significant line differentiation, but it’s only one layer out of many possible distinctions. We’re naturally more concerned with human flourishing than that of chimps, and then closer to home, we’re more concerned with national flourishing, then perhaps regional, religious, or political party flourishing, and then family. Does anyone regard all of humanity as they do their own family? Maybe some do ideologically but when push comes to shove genes always win favor. — praxis

Obvious reductionism aside you're absolutely spot on.

So you hope for a Trump-like win in your country in ten years? Tax cuts for the rich, a judicial system further skewed to favor the rich and powerful, deregulation and the associated degradation of environment, a severely polarized political body, etc? Good luck with that. — praxis

I'm not a big fan of any of those things, actually. You will have to forgive me for having limited knowledge of american politics, but my interpretation is that it boils down to a a question of either or, either Trump or Biden. This is not the case in my country. Anyways, it then becomes a question of better best (or worse worst) and through that perspective I would choose Trump. Not because of anything you mentioned though.

Did I hit a nerve?

Do you have any recommendations? I live in Scandinavia.

That's interesting. Does nihilists (in Nietzsche's positive sense) believe in objective moral truth, in the sense that it exists but we don't yet know it? If not, by what metric will something better built?

in Christianity they circumcise — Bert Newton

That’s weird. In my community growing up nobody where circumcised, and we were all Christians (protestant). Judaism is what comes to my mind.

What if?.....We use science to find the cause of a harmful action and dismiss highly subjective claims in favour of objective facts? — Bert Newton

1. People will not agree with you what harmful, in this context of morality, of good and evil, means.
2. Moral claims are not and will never be objective facts.

Resolving moral issues through science is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, namely to provide an objective ground for moral claims. Science can only show us how to best achieve the fulfillment of a moral duty, not prove what that moral duty ought to be.

For example, although intuitive you will find it very difficult to provide objective proof against the ludicrous claim that "you ought to cause as much pain as possible". What is true, however, is that science could help someone believing in that claim to be more effective in causing pain, analogous to how it can help you achieve what you believe to be just.

In other words: descriptive truth can help us navigate better in the objective world and thus lets us adhere better by moral truth. Nobody as of yet have proven core moral claims using provable (and proved), descriptive claims.