If you want to alert a poster that you quoted them, click on the @ icon on the ribbon, just above, then type the first and second letter and you should get the correct hit for the poster's name.

indelible? Questions — Bella fekete

Your English is a bit off, but not too badly. Basically a lie can only work in a community that expects truth. Clearly there is no community of 'predator and prey', so there is no conflict between the individual interest and the community interest.

But I think there is a lesson here for humanity that in order for everyone to put the community before self interest, everyone must benefit from the community, and not only the dominant members. Someone has put it this way - that the most dangerous person is someone with nothing left to lose. Like that monkey. So with the morality of truth must also come the morality of fairness, and equality.

So a society that is stratified by race or class in a totally unequal way becomes more like a predator/prey arrangement where morality breaks down because society is fractured.

-L’elepant



Got it, and slow learning is compensated by extremely high preception, and as such, the.continuous spectral image releases the boquet of lotus flowers, but extreme patience may be a foreshadow which should fill the void

L’elephant


-on the part of the little monkey, that is

So what are you really saying? Might makes right? — baker

Given that, even within the quoted passage, i note that these are 'misguided' emotions, I would say it's fairly clear this is not my position personally. It also wasn't actually what i was talking about.

I believe those individuals think they are fighting people who do believe 'might is right'. I make no comment on whether that's the case, other than to say i've seen it manifest by way of a either misinformation or misguidance time and time again. That was all i was commenting on :)

If that’s your vibe /.../
— AmadeusD
I'm high functioning on the spectrum.
— Vaskane — baker

Not quite sure why you've noted these together, but the latter was applied to me for a period of close to eight years.

Vaskane's reply following the above comment makes me less inclined to interact with him. Whether that's his fault or not isn't concerning me.

If it bothers you that I'm labeled with a disability, and that I outperform you in most ways. — Vaskane

Yet you can't have an ordinary conversation with ordinary people.

You're a lawyer, right? What one can readily see in practice is a gross inequality before the law, depending on one's socio-economic status. If one has money for a good lawyer, one can get out of pretty much anything. If one doesn't have such money, even an administrative mistake by a government official can mean the end of one's existence. We're not living under the rule of law; we're living under the rule of money. Money, with which law can be bought. And so for someone who doesn't have much money, dealing with the state really comes down to might makes right.

(I studied law for a while, btw.)

You're a lawyer, right? What one can readily see in practice is a gross inequality before the law, depending on one's socio-economic status. If one has money for a good lawyer, one can get out of pretty much anything. If one doesn't have such money, even an administrative mistake by a government official can mean the end of one's existence. We're not living under the rule of law; we're living under the rule of money. Money, with which law can be bought. And so for someone who doesn't have much money, dealing with the state really comes down to might makes right. — baker

(I use this list format for clarity only; not at all a function of exasperation or anything like can sometimes be inferred)
1. No. Legal professional - still working my way toward lawyer unfortunately lol but I do work along side lawyers daily and essentially perform their functions without my signature.
2. That's true to a certain extent, and in certain ways. Nominally, the law should not function beyond quality in terms of those disparities. If you have a shitty lawyer, not a lot can be done. But you're right to point out the aggregate reality of that problem.
3. For uneducated people**
4. Yes, but that is misguided and unhelpful to both their case/s and the overarching claim being made.

“ You're a lawyer, right? What one can readily see in practice is a gross inequality before the law, depending on one's socio-economic status. If one has money for a good lawyer, one can get out of pretty much anything. If one doesn't have such money, even an administrative mistake by a government official can mean the end of one's existence. We're not living under the rule of law; we're living under the rule of money. Money, with which law can be bought. And so for someone who doesn't have much money, dealing with the state really comes down to might makes right.”

-Baker




Touché,

The difference between de-facto and de-jute procedures are not exactly immune to total impression convenient interpretation of the black letter, mostly hidden in fine print. , which little subtlety disqualified me as well.

LOL.

“ (I use this list format for clarity only; not at all a function of exasperation or anything like can sometimes be inferred)
1. No. Legal professional - still working my way toward lawyer unfortunately lol but I do work along side lawyers daily and essentially perform their functions without my signature.
2. That's true to a certain extent, and in certain ways. Nominally, the law should not function beyond quality in terms of those disparities. If you have a shitty lawyer, not a lot can be done. But you're right to point out the aggregate reality of that problem.
3. For uneducated people**
4. Yes, but that is misguided and unhelpful to both their case/s and the overarching claim being made.”



seein is not necessarily perceiving, sometimes perceptions bar a message, and here is a continuum an autist can swear by.

errata


Preceptions may bar perceptions in very drastic ways which require extraordinary measures to clear up,

Preceptions (prejudice?) may bar perceptions in very drastic ways which require extraordinary measures to clear up, — Bella fekete

:heart: . The fasting of the heart

So with the morality of truth must also come the morality of fairness, and equality. — unenlightened

In my 20's I worked as an aid and welfare rights adviser. I realised with some alarm that many of the most positive and entrepreneurial of the poor people I was trying to help would do well - would benefit their families, themselves and society as a whole - to lie, as long as they were cunning and bold enough not to be found out. Welfare systems mostly impose a very high marginal tax rate on those earning small amounts of money: that's why small-scale builders and helpers of all kinds ask you for cash, so they don't have to declare it. It's one reason why I'm for a basic universal income: it promotes honesty.

Likewise, if you're a member of a category that those in authority discriminate against, honesty is of doubtful value. Those in authority may despise you for it, your fellows will judge you naive at best, and you're more likely to end up in trouble/jail/humiliation.

seein is not necessarily perceiving, sometimes perceptions bar a message, and here is a continuum an autist can swear by. — Bella fekete

Whether it's me or you, I have no idea what you're getting at.

"Cause I'm much more fluid than most people here are and am capable of going with the flow quite well. Look how many BSoDs that one simple question caused. "Could not compute must give error report on question asked."

It is more likely you're not groking responses to your ideas adequately, and responding as such.

-“ It is more likely you're not groking responses to your ideas adequately, and responding as such.”

Yeah, when you’re strange, in a strange land, that died in mcarthur park in the rain, like the Chevy in the levy, in Paris.

…

Yeah, when you’re strange, in a strange land, that died in mcarthur park in the rain, like the Chevy in the levy, in Paris. — Bella fekete

A wonderful set of references.

That you don't understand that is because of exactly as what Bella says, Your perception bars your perception of other perceptions. — Vaskane

It appears you are firmly incapable of considering other, polite, possibilities.

That said:

No, like now, I could have asked you to elaborate, as you did of me, by asking you to clarify what exactly you mean, but instead of being afraid of perhaps embarrassing myself by misinterpreting the definitions of the words used (that's why words have definitions in the first place: for clarity; my apologies for using a combination that appeared like hieroglyphics to you) I merely trust my judgement, and hold my self accountable for any accidental fallacy of equivocation that may occur during the use of words with multiple meanings. I've long overcome the fear and embarrassment that occurs on the route to knowledge. It's as simple as saying "Oh! That's what you meant!" And move on, all the while, I'm continuing the discussion, and even allowing myself to be vulnerable with the other party. — Vaskane

Ignoring your continuous ad hominem,

Fine. Nothing abhorrent about this, but... This is a waste of my time, and I don't have the time to wade through misapprehensions, when you could (if capable) just answer directly what you mean, to avoid putting the other person through a slog that you could have avoided with a modicum of good faith.

Again, if this is your vibe, go for it. It isn't mine and my issue is that you seem to have a pretty deep and untouchable superiority complex, in which i have no interest. But thank you for elaborating, nevertheless.

He's saying someone like me can swear that perceptions can bar perceptions. People can even be saying the same thing from two different perspectives and fight about it until they realize they mean the same damn thing. — Vaskane

Unless you';re claiming to have overcome sense perception, this is built-in to every conversation ever had. Doesn't have a reason to be said here.

In fact you're attempting to use my very argument against you against me. — Vaskane

It is not my problem if the emperor has no clothes, Vaskane.

That you can't shows you're probably being dishonest about something. — Vaskane

Bizarre. Can you let me know your reasoning for this? Rather htan your claim?

ust say the other possibilities out loud. — Vaskane

I have. Multiple times. But your job here, it seems, is ignoring everything relevant to maintain a position of both superiority, and aloofness which allows you to avoid, altogether, speaking without extreme affectation.

Again, Not my vibe. Enjoy :)

Not quite sure what that means? — Vaskane

It's a known turn of phrase. I'm sure you can clarify for yourself ;) .

You've quoted my first response, and your second response, in reverse order. Whether that matters, I don't know, but it's incorrect.

To which you even admit that you're too afraid to venture into using your own judgement because you're afraid to convey your own solipsistic machinations: — Vaskane

Nothing in the quoted piece suggests anything of the sort.
And in fact, I feel no need to clarify as the comment stands on it's own.

You've not shown me any reasoning for hte quote I questioned.

It matters not, it was just a function of Quoting and bad organization, move it to the correct spot, as I did in my post. Which weighs nothing on my argument. — Vaskane

I allowed for that possibility - thanks for confirming.

I've sent them images of the process in the inbox, even how to quote. I think there's a language barrier. — Vaskane

:up:

-on the part of the little monkey, that is — Bella fekete

Tell me what you mean.

this is garbled nonsense.

Take care.

Yeah, okay, but what do you mean???

I agree with the possibility :)

I associate honesty with the mindset of maturity or wisdom. To me, a fully mature and wise person realizes the deeper value of honesty that goes beyond short term consequences. People who are dishonest always turn out to be immature, immoral, or criminal in their behavior. Dishonesty is all about being selfish and avoiding unpleasant consequences. Whether a person is honest or not is like shorthand for their character overall. Honest equals honorable. For me, honesty might be the single best determinant for whether I want to associate with a person or not. As soon as I catch someone being dishonest I immediately want them out of my life, or I want to be out of theirs.

What characterises the mindset associated with dishonesty? My first impulse is to notice that the mindset must typically include a notion that some advantage will accrue, either personally or tribally.

Consider the deceptive body of a stick insect. It (metaphorically) declares to the world and particularly to its predators "Ignore me, I am a stick." The Blind Watchmaker learns to lie, and simultaneously in the evolution of the predator, tries to learn how to detect a lie. Such is communication between species, in which morality plays no role. Nevertheless, the advantage of deception is obvious.

Imagine a tribe of smallish monkeys in a jungle environment; they have various calls of social identification, and perhaps some to do with dominance and other stuff, but in particular, they have two alarm calls, one warning of ground predators, and one warning of sky predators. One day, one rather low status monkey, who aways has to wait for the others to eat and often misses out on the best food, spots some especially tasty food on the ground, and gives the ground alarm call. The tribe all rush to climb up high, and the liar gets first dibs for once on the treat. This behaviour has been observed, but I won't trouble you myself with references.

Here, one can clearly see that dishonesty is parasitic on honesty. Overall there is a huge social advantage in a warning system, but it is crucially dependent on honesty, and is severely compromised by individual dishonesty. Hence the social mores, that become morality. Society runs on trust, and therefore needs to deter and prevent dishonesty. And this cannot be reversed because the dependence is one way, linguistically. If dishonesty were ever to prevail and be valorised, language would become non-functional. The alarm call would come to mean both 'predator on the ground', and 'tasty food on the ground'. that is, it would lose its effective warning function and its function as a lie. — unenlightened

:clap:
Great post!

How do you think this account of morality meshes with inequality?

You describe dishonesty as a tool of the low status, as a means of achieving a more equal share. Moral norms are introduced to counter the dishonesty strategy, and in general all the strategies that benefit the individual at the cost of the group (this for me is just our notion of "evil"). This moral system imposes a cost on uncooperative behavior. This cost can take the form of loss of social capital, loss of privileges, at the extreme, exclusion and death, and today loss of property and freedom.

But then, given the initial, natural state of inequality of social (therefore hierarchical) species, morality only exacerbates the inequality. The high status can well afford the social capital cost of immoral acts (and today, the financial costs as well). Moreover, to be high status means that just as benefits are disproportionally maximized, costs are disproportionally minimized. So they can very easily afford the discounted costs. Therefore, the high status are able to exploit immorality to entrench and increase their positions.

Whereas, for the low status, immoral acts become a very risky gambit. They can hardly afford the costs. Failure can easily mean exclusion, injury, and therefore death (and today, devastating financial costs and prison terms). Therefore, the low status are ill equipped to exploit immorality as a means to normalize their low status.

What do you think? Is increasing inequality an inherent feature of moral systems?

“ I agree with the possibility”


Sorry to be disingenuous, but then, sure, everything repositioned and , or disposed, suffers sense of critical perception of disorganization, whereas quick fixes, short cuts suddenly jump out of nowhere and imply unintended perceptions that may allude to a sign which does not come close enough to a clearly constructed idea.

That this procedural shift necessarily implies some other mind set which approaches a sense of dishonesty, is questionable , and exhibits a preceptive bias, which usually is merely a matter of opinion, that may not rise to the level of a superiority complex.

Just a passing through comment but the opinions do not suggest and form of judgement, while sustaining an allowable neutral attitude, which can shift love’s ‘love’ delicate balancing act proportionally and grossly out of joint, that creates the very dissembling quality interpreted on opposite positions on the fulcrum.