Z is weak and stupid because he is aggressive? Or because he is motivated by the inferences he can make when being aggressive? Can someone really become weak and stupid just because you don't like what they're doing? No, we don't know Z's characteristics, what you're doing is no different than Z, making assertions based on how convenient it'd be if it were true.

Is your weak/stupid, strong/wise dynamic, just a way for you to assert control over your environment? The prerequisites of these terms are defined by your ideals but you retain their conventional meaning? When you call someone weak, what you really mean is some specific, non-standard prerequisites have been met but when you call someone weak, that comes with the cultural power associated with the word. Nobody wants to be called weak, but probably nobody cares about meeting your specific prerequisites, based on ideals they don't follow. Best of both worlds, right?

It's like if I defined intelligence as = the ability to realise the truth of this world and the "truth" is what I understand to be the truth. If you disagree with me then you're unintelligent, right? According to my definition.

You don't need to respond to that if you could just answer, how do you determine whether someone is / is being weak or stupid? Same for strong/wise. I don't see how you can assert Z must be X, I don't understand why you're X if you can't convince a buffoon like Trump, as if Trump hasn't ignored very competent, intelligent and accomplished people at every turn?

I see. I don't dislike your philosophy, humans certainly are both sometimes X and sometimes Y.

Not that aggression necessarily focuses on things like weakness and stupidity, Z could be arguing on the superiority of his traits or views which he certainly has. Everyone has views about what is good or bad, right or wrong, Z does too but Z is motivated by feelings of superiority. He could be arguing for anything, what's important are the feelings he evokes in himself. If we can identify Z when talking to them, I think that could be very helpful in understanding how to deal with or think about this person. Do you agree?

Do you have any advice on how we could identify Z?

On this view, to "condemn, demean, mock or hold in contempt" for their attributes is legitimate; after all if the attributes are flawed in any way and if attributes define identity, the aggressor is justified in criticizing the person. — TheMadFool

I don't really know that you're talking about the same thing as I... I think whether the aggressor is "justified" does not depend on whether an individual is or has attributes. It's about intention, justification and delivery.

If the aggressor's intention is noble, they're justified in their criticism and their criticism is delivered respectfully, that's going to be found agreeable by most. If their intention is to hurt, their criticism is unreasonable and they've spoken rudely then that's going to be found disagreeable by most. In some cases, just being justified might be enough but I guess we really don't care at that point about the feelings of the target.

In OP, the aggressor is motivated by the elevation of their character, status and worth. If the goal is the actual correction of behaviour or a genuine dispute in preferences or ideals then OP doesn't describe people like that. Their delivery is aimed at maximising their display of superiority and so, it's unlikely to be respectful. It's probably something to be judged case-by-case but I think we can assume that a third party would be unlikely to find the aggressor motivated by inference reasonable or justified.

We still agree X = weak/stupid, right? Z = my theoretical aggressor, Y = strong/wise.

The hierarchy exists in the mind of the aggressor, whether it exists in any other form or not. Well, I am not trying to argue that all forms of hostility or aggression are motivated by what it says about the aggressor. You can call a man weak and a "bitch" or say a professor was being toxic without trying to emphasise how you're different - and better. However, isn't this inference basically necessary for your comments to make sense, how can you condemn people if you're no better? Doesn't it only make sense if you're above their behaviour? And isn't it necessary for you to put these "fakes" in their place? Isn't that kind of what you've been doing here in this thread?

Anyway, I understand that the thinking of "Z" in my example is not in line with your ideals, I imagine most people would feel that way.

As you mentioned, there can be a variety of motivations for alienating other persons or groups, but I think the central motive for harm, violence and rejection of others is feeling the emotion of anger. — Joshs

I don't know about this, sometimes I question whether the anger demonstrated is a real motivation or part of an act which reinforces a particular way of experiencing the world. Anger raises the stakes, I could have written a thread about "anger motivated by inference" where, we become so angry to emphasise the difference between us and that which we're angry about, to highlight the importance of our feelings. "Why would I be this angry if this wasn't a serious matter? Your offence deserves this kind of anger".

It's the same with much of what we've both listed, it's all exaggerated to maximise the effect of the actual motivation. In this case, the motivation is to demonstrate superiority, to promote oneself, to emphasise one's virtue, to impose one's views, etc. The aggressor is motivated by what their condemnation means for them and their feelings may be exaggerated for this purpose. Such as pretending to be amazed or astonished that people could be so incompetent to emphasise their own supposed competence.

But in a second step, we generate the possibility of forcing them back to the way we believe they should have acted in the first place. — Joshs

I gravitate towards the understanding that the aggressor is enforcing a hierarchical structure, their goal is to act in a way that reinforces its validity. Through their condemnation or disapproval of those determined to be near the bottom of the hierarchy, it is indicated that the aggressor is situated high-up in the hierarchy. This is the primary goal of the aggressor motivated by inference, they are not actually interested in correcting any behaviour, even though they may say they are. Their motivation is the feeling of superiority and validation that comes with this "acting out" of superiority as they condemn, ridicule, etc.

I don't deny that there are contexts, particularly moral contexts, where the perpetrator or target of the aggression is the real focus. That the aggressor is genuinely motivated by the desire to correct. Since this is such a large topic, we are talking in generalisations. I think it comes down to who the aggressor is really talking about, what is their attention focused on. Is the condemnation an opportunity to virtue signal, to demonstrate the aggressor's quality, to show the distance between the aggressor and the target of their criticism, how they could never stoop so low? In that case, it is hard to think they really care whether their target fights back against their claims or admits fault because their feelings are inconsequential to the goal of the aggressor. To demonstrate their superiority and assume the identity of the superior and be validated.

Where I believe strong cannot complain about weak, and wise cannot complain about stupid, it raises the question of how the strong and wise are to related to others without violating these principles and therefor exhibiting their own weakness and stupidity (humanity) in doing so. — James Riley

If Y is the quality of being either (strong/wise) and X is (weak/stupid) then consider that Z is the individual who is motivated to aggression by inference. For argument's sake, say we do not know if he is closer to Y or X but what if Z viciously condemns, ridicules and mocks every person with X that he can find, either to his friends, himself or even directly at them. Z believes he is Y and he acts in a way that would only make sense if he was Y. He is validated by his aggression, how can he be what he hates, his condemnation puts distance between himself and X, creating the illusion of his superiority.

If Z actually was Y, he flaunts it, through his aggression towards X, in accordance with his narcissistic tendencies and self-confidence. He emphasises the hierarchical difference between himself and lower than he, constructing a worldview that highlights his superiority. Thus those with Y, enticed by the inferences and perhaps even the real-world consequences of aggression, do not help those with X but abandon them. If Z states Y is absolutely necessary for success, that Y is how we measure a person's value, that Y is what makes a person attractive, then Z further reinforces the significance of his superiority.

We may be left to wonder whether Z actually has anything against X at all - or if he's just doing all this because he's drunk on the feeling of superiority that comes with acting as though he's superior. And as I said Z may not be Y at all, I just think it becomes absolute for Z in his mind that he is Y because of how he treats X. Like it wouldn't make any sense for someone to be aggressive and condescending towards people with X unless you were better than them.

If Z decided to see X as a valid way to be, something which just is and there's nothing wrong with it, each to their own and live and let live - which I think is the opposite of aggression, then Z will probably lose these feelings of superiority. His worldview which comfortably puts him at the top and X at the bottom relies on his aggressive characterisations of X, without them, that falls apart.

"Helping those with X" may actually be quite similar to being aggressive towards X, why? Because it still reinforces the hierarchy, X is still lower on that hierarchy and can be helped by people with Y. Z may or may not have Y but if he tries to help people with X, as though he does have Y, it reinforces the idea that this must be true. I see this as a kind of reinforcement of Z's superiority - where he "helps" those who "need his help" - he has the wisdom, the strength, the knowledge that others need.

I think the old advice of "treat others as you yourself would like to be treated" is pretty close to what the person you're interacting with would prefer. It's less about "loving your enemies" and more about not having enemies, don't let it get to the point that you see people like that. Aggression can create enemies and cause one to see people as enemies but you don't have to be that way. Z cannot choose to "love his enemy" without parting with his worldview, he loses his self-perceived special status, his feelings of superiority and so on.

There is the possibility however that had English a gender which marked non-human, animate things, and if there existed a pronoun in that gender, that this pronoun would be used to refer to the cloud or whatever. — Taylor

And some languages don't even have gendered pronouns, as though we just said "it" about everyone and everything. My opinion on this matter is that gender is an intellectual, cultural and linguistic concept, the rules for gender in English and probably most languages are pretty crap. The "correct" pronoun use is determined by the rules of the language, which, may or may not even be consistent. We don't need to look for truth in their use because their use is not based on any truth, it is based on rules, which can be confusing, misleading and unsatisfactory.

Does that require a concept of gender role or identity? — Taylor

Gender does give us (or asserts) important information, it is not a meaningless category. If in my story, my cloud was a "he" then ascribing my cloud with a traditionally feminine perspective, with feminine attire and feminine attributes, that may be quite confusing for my audience.

If I had my two clouds, bob and jane, acting like a couple, then we would expect the "bob" or "male" cloud to fulfil the role of the husband and jane, the wife. It might be quite bizarre or confusing for some if I had bob act like a traditional wife and jane act like a traditional husband. If I called both my clouds "it" or a new non-human gendered pronoun then perhaps the context that I'm trying to evoke thoughts about wouldn't come across as well. I guess it depends on the context.

I think in English that "it" comes across differently than "he" or she", if one calls their boat an "it" then their boat comes across a thing, if one calls their boat a "she", it gives the boat some personality. "It (the boat) takes me from place to place vs "she takes me from place to place", it gives the boat a sense of agency. The boat almost seems to be choosing to take her captain from place to place. That's my view, I don't know if a different English pro-noun like the ones from your link, carry that same kind of feel or not.

Anyway, English dictates the rules and the rules are confusing. They could be different and that'd be fine, maybe preferable. I follow the rules because we need rules, not because I agree with them or think they're good.

As I mentioned, things like controlling your emotions fall outside the scope of philosophy. Intellectually recognising an imperative is one thing, actualising it is another. Philosophy is mostly useless for the latter in my view. You realise that your emotions get the best of you and cause you to act in a way contrary to what you understand to be best, well, that's the same with everyone. Many anguish over such things, they know what they do is counterproductive or wrong but the reason they do what they do stems from essentially a lack of self-control.

To me, philosophy is about characterising, contextualising, describing, categorising and so on, as appropriate to the specific context. What a good philosopher produces is a valid, robust and compelling understanding or assertion. This thread is an example of philosophy, you are giving your thoughts about a context, the meaning of action and inaction to you, etc. It doesn't really matter if you're a hypocrite because your hypocrisy would just be a result of your inability to live up to your own expectations.

Actualising your ideals or acting in accordance with your philosophy requires more than just for you to have the philosophical views you have. It requires strength, discipline, repetition, freedom and all sorts of things, depending on the context. Of course, if it is your view that actualising is necessary then that's that, we know where the other stands and that's fine.

I will say that most of philosophy is not about something that one should or can practice. What about your views of what should be done about the ultrarich, or the role of the government, or how the oppressed should react when you aren't rich, or part of the government, or oppressed? It is good to be the change you want to see in the world and to be able to demonstrate that you're living in accordance with your ideals but that's a quite specific scenario. And not being able to live up to your ideals doesn't make your belief in them untrue, we aren't perfect and it's reasonable for us to fall short of our lofty ideals and to realise we could be better.

And I, perhaps in a quasi-Christian "puritanical" way, want to reject that notion. — Xtrix

I understand. I share your views but I see the gap between those who think like us and those who disagree as stemming from mostly this enjoyment and interest in the topic. I don't say it is recreational to demean it, I say it is recreational because it is not related to our work, we do it in our spare time and we do it because we enjoy it. People who don't do it might be getting fitter or richer than us, having more fun with their friends, competing at sports on a higher level, there's only so much time in a life and we spend it doing what we enjoy. I do understand your position though, I feel I could fully agree with you if I was being less considerate of how people differ.

But I feel it's closer to the Christian analogy: what kinds of lives are we living, we philosophers? — Xtrix

What is a philosopher supposed to produce or showcase to demonstrate their quality?

Based on much of what I read here -- including my own "contributions" -- it's not a pretty sight. — Xtrix

Well, I think philosophy forums can be explained like this; you are a horror movie enthusiast on a forum about rom-coms. You're here to discuss the greatness of the great horror movies but you're instead appalled and disappointed to see all these people being excited about rom-coms, a genre you despise. In many of the threads I read on this forum, I disagree with about everyone, I have a bone to pick with most of the comments I read and it's not surprising. I like to think I conduct myself well enough but probably most people think the same about what I write, finding most of it disagreeable, wrong, misguided - whatever.

The evaluation of our ideas and their worth is a big part of philosophy, why would we think what we think if we didn't see it had value - even just the value of being right. The more time I devote to philosophy, the further away I get from an opinion I would have had if I didn't, I feel more convinced about my way of thinking. Many posters here, including yourself really, I am not a huge fan but I kind of understand, you're surrounded by viewpoints you despise and you're not necessarily wrong for believing what you believe. Well, I expect blood to be spilled, it is what it is, a philosophy forum will never be a pretty sight.

If someone said playing team sports has helped them with communication, trust, teamwork, work ethic, the importance of planning and etc, that's fair. Philosophy also has its own set of benefits that people who dive into philosophy can cite but I think at its heart, philosophy is practised by people who enjoy it. I wouldn't spend so much time pondering philosophical questions if it wasn't stimulating and enjoyable. I don't consider it "work" and if it was boring, I wouldn't spend time on it just because I wanted those profound benefits.

For questions like "what do I want to do with my life", I think that this question is not necessarily that philosophical. In that, someone could say "work with animals, have a family, be kind to my friends and travel" and that's a fine answer, a pretty normal answer. "What is a good life", if the reply was "live healthily, with friends, good food and a career you enjoy", that's fair, right? I just don't think people who don't care for philosophy are going to dive into the books, the forums, the thinking about "what a good life is" and trying to come up with their best answer - as you or I might.

Why do I want - or value - an answer to this question that is "better" than those kinds of simple answers? Well, it's not because it's purely fun, I genuinely value a deeper and more considered answer, I value my own answers, which I came to with a lot of effort and consideration. I'm just not surprised when someone who has that simple answer is totally uninterested in that. I personally really value recreational activities that aren't just "fun", I enjoy creating something or gaining a skill.

And that's basically what I'm saying in this post: if philosophy, or math, or religion, or politics, etc., simply becomes an addiction or a "hobby," then maybe it's time to move on to something more productive. — Xtrix

Well, that's fair. Philosophy is directly related to determining the value of our activities, including, philosophy. Therefore, it is a personal question, what is the purpose of philosophy, why are we thinking about it and how do we know we're getting from it what we want? There's no one right answer.

Philosophy is mostly a recreational activity, discussing subject matter which is ill-positioned to produce any positive effects in one's life whatsoever. Particularly, when we're talking about positive effects which are likely to be recognised and appreciated by people who don't share our philosophical ideas.

Firstly, with social and communication skills such as being well-mannered and patient in conversation, well, these are just good traits for having people listen to you. No matter what I say, no matter its value, if I say it rudely and impatiently, of course, you are not likely to listen to that. If I don't care to hear what you have to say, it is unlikely you're going to repay me with caring to hear what I have to say, in a normal conversation.

The things one can do to produce positive effects in their life are generally, in my view, simply too simple to be useful for a deep philosophical thinker. Get a schedule, get your 8 hours sleep, eat healthily, do your regular exercise, put first things first, treat others like you'd yourself like to be treated, groom yourself and the list goes on.

I think you could argue, prioritise getting your life in order before *insert any recreational activity*. The more someone is committed to a recreational activity, where that be gaming, sports or philosophy, the more I expect that they are going to live a less "balanced" life and sacrifice more for that passion.

It wouldn't really make sense that having a complex and nuanced understanding of history, geography, geopolitics or philosophy or anything like that - would help your personal life. They're all fairly terrible subjects to be asking "what good is it to me to know this". if you don't think it is interesting and of value to know by itself, without further producing any positive changes in your life, then your interests kind of suck.

From Ecce Homo 1908
“The Transvaluation of all Values, this is my formula for mankind's greatest step towards coming to its[Pg 132]senses—a step which in me became flesh and genius. … Thus, I am necessarily a man of Fate. For when Truth enters the lists against the falsehood of ages, shocks are bound to ensue, and a spell of earthquakes, followed by the transposition of hills and valleys, such as the world has never yet imagined even in its dreams. The concept "politics" then becomes elevated entirely to the sphere of spiritual warfare. All the mighty realms of the ancient order of society are blown into space—for they are all based on falsehood: there will be wars, the like of which have never been seen on earth before. Only from my time and after me will politics on a large scale exist on earth.

By 1900, the world is dominated by the imperialistic powers in Europe, Japan is already well into the process of industrializing, even defeating Russia in 1905. The US by 1890 is the world's largest economy. Germany has been unified by Bismarck, a great deal of the groundwork has been set for WW1. The world is already quite far into the process of prioritising capitalism, politics and science over religion. Politics already exists on a large scale. Populations are booming, Europe has access to overseas manpower, the destructive capacity of their militaries is rising rapidly. There are many ways that one could predict things such as the rise of politics over religion, that wars will kill millions, that politics will exist on a global scale because many of these things are already happening or that which will allow them to happen is happening. So, it's not just the death of God.

I believe Nietzche is not talking about the "falsehood" being something to celebrate, he's talking about a power vacuum created by the death of God, "that shocks are bound to ensue". It is like predicting that the fall of Saddam Hussein will lead to ISIS, in that, such a claim would not be considered praise of Hussein, just recognition that his disappearance will cause a power vacuum which will be fought over by various political factions.

Politics that did seek to give man new meaning and purpose, such as Fascism, Nationalism and Communism, could be interpreted to be filling the void left by religion, Nazism did create a new imperative, a new moral code, a new purpose for Germans and Stalinism and Maoism are very similar. Compared to a monarch who relies on the divine right to rule, it does seem Nietzche was right about that. Today, I'm not sure, to a large extent, I think that capitalism has replaced politics as the new religion. Your imperative and purpose is to acquire material wealth, to obtain the American dream and to succeed.

Political movements focus on allowing people to succeed financially in ways that they've been unable to or how people are presented culturally, largely on the economic and business side of things. Even spats between the US and China are largely based on economic and technological disputes which have financial motivations. Their competition is more focused on being competitive in an economic sense.

I share the sentiments of @James Riley about morality, Western atheism today has shown that "Christian morality" does not rely on religion like Nietzche thought it did. Sure, some components of it are uniquely Christian but much of the basics are just a result of some basic empathy, compassion and a bit of logic too. Things are changing as usual but I don't think the primary catalyst is the death of God anymore.

Even without the sensory faculties, your ability to experience hunger & thirst, emotions, your hormonal operations would not be compromised and so on.

Descriptions of reality are asserted through rulesets created by the intellect, not rulesets contingent upon "reality", whatever it is. Your rulesets don't need to meet any criteria besides your belief and your application of them. That's what faith is, that's what your views about arrogance, knowledge, whatever else, are. Just remember that most people are trying to form rulesets that can reliably predict the future, or follow some shared understanding, or describe things in accordance with ideas like logic, reason and etc.

If i.e you discourage the pursuit of power and control, your reasoning for doing so is X and if X is a claim about reality, then we can to some extent test this claim. We should do this because if X is incorrect then your reason for doing what you do is likely also incorrect. You could just ignore this possibility and nothing is stopping you from doing that but there is an argument that says that you should care. Your conclusion could be your own personal reality, a mixture of bias, anecdotal evidence and interpretation labelled wisdom. If X is verified, your reasoning is not validated in a scientific sense, your complicated interpretation cannot be validated by any science.

That you claimed X about reality and we can verify whether X is true or not causes problems for the idea of just creating your own reality. That your complicated interpretation cannot be validated by science doesn't stop other intellects from disagreeing with your reasoning. If you adhere in a basic sense to how logic and validity works, you try to be reasonable then you can also be demonstrated to be incorrect in your claims about how X means we should do Y. And so, there are significant limitations for you, they are only overcome by your flaws, basically, that you can be wrong but convinced you are correct, unreasonable but convinced you are being fair.

I'm not saying it's that simple but I think that's a fair starting point.

You are correct but unless oppression is morally wrong, why does this matter? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

It matters because you have argued many times in this thread about how absolutism has pragmatic advantages such as protecting us against oppression and tyranny.

Do you believe that your moral views and the views of the fascist to have equal moral validity? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Potentially, yes. If their reasons for their views were valid.

If this is the only determining factor then what right do you have to condemn the actions of Mussolini? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

You're talking about a fundamental human characteristic as being a right? Morality is enforced, it is not some invisible truth that compels people to act in a certain way. Mussolini's actions deeply go against my beliefs about how a country should be governed and how people should treat each other.

You show a moral relativist pictures of Mussolini's oppression, you tell them about how Mussolini's police state, with oppression and misinformation, how he restricted peoples' rights and freedoms. The moral relativist is visibly upset, says they're shocked at how someone could get away with all of these things they deem terrible. You say "I don't see why it matters that you're upset, Mussolini did nothing wrong without moral absolutes". It's just so silly, you're seeing morality function as normal, a person is applying their moral convictions as to be expected but you're somehow unsatisfied. They didn't get upset about Mussolini breaking some inaccessible list of no-no's, they're only upset because they empathise with the victims of his brutality, what a disaster.

Open-mindedness and discipline.

The two characteristics really compliment each other, if I only knew a person was open-minded and disciplined, I'd favour them to succeed in pretty much anything they tried their hand at.

If someone told Mussolini murder was objectively wrong, would he not laugh in their face? You brought up Mussolini to give an example of a moral relativist who oppressed others but moral absolutism has a long history of not merely failing to stop oppression but actually being a part of it. Don't you think you're basically suggesting that morality should do something that we know it's incapable of doing? As I said earlier if you call say honesty is a moral absolute and I choose to lie, your "absolute" does nothing, my lie's consequences will be independent of that evaluation.

Morality has power when it's written into law, when it is part of the culture and when it's engrained into peoples' minds. Without those things, morality is nothing, just words and ideas. Fascism is only bad because it tramples on things I value but the value I see in those things is indeed subjective, I accept that.

The empathiser does not inherently understand pain is bad, they feel the pain and the pain makes them emotional. Things which cause pain may be "bad" but what is "bad"? It just reflects the emotional or intellectual rejection of that thing in a (generally) specified context by the person using the label.

oppression is always wrong no matter what. In other words it is absolutely wrong. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

It is essential to realise that "oppression" is not always referring to the same thing. If person A and person B agree oppression is wrong but person A considers X oppression and person B does not then person A and B's views about oppression are not the same. Even if person A & B agree X is oppression, they could disagree on many particulars, these disagreements aren't necessarily insignificant, that's a big part of what makes morality complicated.

Why is oppression seen as universally bad? One explanation is that oppression is an inherently critical description. Even if the oppressing party actually used the term oppression they would also believe that the circumstances call or allow for it and it is justified.

The definition of oppression according to dictionary.cambridge.org

"a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom"

Keywords are "unfair" and "cruel", oppression cannot be the correct term to describe something fair and reasonable which it usually is from the perspective of those who do the oppressing.

Definition of tyranny by dictionary.cambridge.com

"government by a ruler or small group of people who have unlimited power over the people in their country or state and use it unfairly and cruelly"

No reasonable definition of tyranny will make it sound like it could possibly be a compliment. The definition of the word makes it so that everyone must see tyranny negatively because tyranny is used to disapprove. If you called Mussolini a tyrant, a pro-Mussolini fascist would either disagree that he was tyrannical or he would argue that the tyranny was net beneficial and justified, likely tweaking the definition a bit.

Essentially every culture has valued loyalty, integrity, strength, fairness, respect, honesty and more. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

But is it culture that is responsible for these values or human psychology? Dogs care about fairness and they recognise who is the pack leader. They show loyalty and respect to the pack leader. They dislike it when you take things from them and like it when they are given food or toys. They can be taught what behaviour is good and what is bad. They know when is dinner or walk time and expect that consistency. Basically, while dogs are not humans, it's not as though culture has created the importance of values like fairness, fairness is a part of our culture because humans value fairness as a result of their psychology.

Is the dog onto something or have we just evolved in a similar way to dogs? The latter and the biases of our brains should be addressed as biases and not some mysterious interaction between factual morality and our psychological, hormonal and emotional development. Just as what I find attractive or tasty shouldn't be viewed as objectively attractive or tasty.

A decent way to wrap your head around how morality works is to think about what a dog might do. If I have two dogs and I give one dog all the affection and food and the other dog gets jealous or growls and gets angry, yeah, that's pretty much what most children would do as well. If someone were to beat and kick their dog and treated them cruelly, it's going to be hostile towards them, growling and baring their teeth at them, right? Humans will develop the same contempt.

Humans have empathy, where even if you just watched someone kicking their dog, you would be able to put yourself in the dog's position and feel for the dog. That's what separates humans from other animals, the injustice doesn't have to happen to you for you to get angry about it. Now that's almost exactly how morality operates and it's a strong feeling. People may not get merely mildly angry about something like that. They are capable of feeling for the dog's situation so strongly that they could desire to take literal, violent revenge on the dog's behalf, they may actually cry because they find it so sad and awful. I could give examples but I assume you've already seen things like this.

Why is murder wrong? If I watch a video of a parent crying for their deceased child, I, without intent, will likely feel sad or angry on their behalf, that's just the natural consequence of empathy. People don't need a fancy articulation of what makes murder wrong, they just need to hear about how the deceased person had goals and dreams, they just need to see the grief of the relatives and they can feel intense hatred towards the murderer, a person they've never even met before. And because everyone in a community can empathise with the deceased and their loved ones, the murderer is condemned and ostracized by the entire community. Now for you, maybe you decide that murder is objectively wrong, it really doesn't change much.

Anything that you can reasonably be upset about if it happened to you, you can get upset about it when it happens to someone else because of empathy. Morality reinforces itself effortlessly in such circumstances and that's mostly what morality is but other areas of morality still have some other psychological basis that gives potency to any view on right or wrong.

The potency of moral views does not rely on absolutism, it doesn't come from thinking you're objectively correct. What makes murder upset people is not their contempt for a non-factual understanding of morality. People don't get upset because "murder is objectively wrong, you did a wrong thing, that's bad". They get upset due to the raw emotional experience caused by empathy, outraged by the consequences of the act, they'll viciously attack the character of the perpetrator and be appalled and saddened by what happened to the victim.

Do you disagree with that? Can you see how I think Mussolini is wrong because I feel angry for the people he killed, rather than because I'm upset he violated a moral absolute? Can you see that even though I don't think Mussolini violated a moral absolute, that it doesn't impact my anger about all the innocent people he murdered?

You seem to be equating moral absolutism with moral inflexibility. Moral absolutism does not make the claim that our current understanding of morality is true, merely that moral truth exists, whether we know it or not. Moral relativism claims that there is no moral truth. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Moral Absolutism claims that an understanding of morality can be factually correct. If I determine methods for proving the correctness of moral positions and use those methods to verify the correctness of my moral positions then the problems I have laid out follow. Flexibility has never followed and why would it? Why would a fact be flexible?

To this I would offer this CS Lewis quote.

Correct thinking will not make good men of bad ones; but a purely theoretical error may remove ordinary checks to evil and deprive good intentions of their natural support. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Moral absolutism, however, claims that there is a moral law that all must follow, no matter whether they are a king, an activist group, or even a god. Absolute morality frees us from the yoke of the oppressor. We now have grounds to fight him. No matter how powerful a man gets there is always something more powerful which we can cling to and fight from. We can rally people who are being oppressed or mistreated, but how do we rally people if oppression and mistreatment do not actually exist? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Moral absolutism has existed throughout human history, it has not succeeded in freeing people from tyranny, it has abetted tyranny and that still occurs today. That's why I cannot agree with your argument. Moral relativism is relatively new in comparison and its impact on bringing about equality and fairness has been significantly better. I understand your concern, you want to hold people accountable but moral relativism does a much better job of that than absolutism. In most ways, relativism and absolutism function the same, the outside circumstances still shape our moral views the same. However, under relativism, a bad person is stripped of their moral authority, a good argument stands a better chance.

What you say is true but under moral relativism what ground do you have to condemn the actions of, say, the Pharaohs who used slaves to build monuments to themselves? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Moral views are everchanging, this change cannot be controlled but the views of the time are still embedded into the people of that time. Today, many relativists follow humanism which emphasises the value and freedom of people, for the sake of human dignity and equality, to create a more fair and caring world. There are any number of ways to condemn the Pharaohs for their actions but we can look at groups today like Al'Queda or ISIS and I'd say it's pretty obvious, most Western moral relativists view them with disgust and horror, we're not seeing parades of moral relativists saying "leave these people alone, they're doing nothing wrong, it's just our Western perspective". That's just not how morality works.

The only recourse I can see is for them to prove — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

The only recourse is to prove something under moral absolutism which has either made up rules or theological rules for how something is proven? Come on.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the most tolerant of homosexuals are the most relativistic and the least tolerant are the most absolutist. Relativism just fosters a live and let live attitude, because you have to accept that people who live and think differently from you can be totally valid. So if they're not causing anyone any harm, then why not just let them do whatever. Again, that's not theory, we can just compare the US with Western Europe and get a clear picture of that.

1. Why does it matter that we discuss morality fairly?
2. What do you mean by harmful? — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Because when moral views serve one group at the expense of another, it allows people to justify oppression. Technically, I could just think we should do whatever is best for me but I recognise that it's much better for me if we all do what is best for all of us, rather than all of us doing what is just best for ourselves. We want to have a system that works for everyone because that's how we protect ourselves and the people we care about. We also want that because of ideas like humanism and the emotional and psychological sensibilities developed by the circumstances of our time and our biological circumstances. Harmful is complicated but generally, I mean views that allow or call for the oppression or harm of people who are not themselves oppressing or harming anyone.

Many of the problems you've brought up with moral relativity are intellectually sound based on the belief but do not take into account the social, economic, cultural, biological circumstances which impose limitations on how moral relativism actually operates in the real world. Intellectually, a moral relativist can abandon social convention, act in accordance with what they think is right and essentially reinvent morality because, without an immutable moral code, there's nothing stopping them from doing that. However, in reality, there's a great deal stopping them from doing that.

Legally, culturally and socially, there could be severe consequences for me if I should fail to comply with established norms. My relationships could suffer, my finances could suffer, my opportunities reduced. I may invite ridicule, scorn and mockery by presenting my "out-there" ideas to others. Without going on about it, I can deviate from standard morality only if I'm in a position where I can avoid or resist these consequences and that's going to be difficult for most people.

Logically, biologically, psychologically, there are just some moral ideas that are really, let's say, philosophically formidable. You mention things like fairness, loyalty, integrity but what does a moral relativist need to abandon to genuinely go against many of these time tested values? I think in most cases, it's more than they're able but they would rarely want to in the first place. Even before society forces me to not be an asshole, I'm psychologically attuned to the concept of fairness, I'm more likely to be able to see merit in being a responsible and loyal person, I can see what the world would be like if certain values were abandoned. I'm not saying people can't choose the less travelled road but that what you likely consider the moral path is attractive for many reasons besides a philosophical belief in moral truth.

The moral relativist's intellectual freedom is simply insignificant in comparison to the outside pressure when it comes to the moulding of their moral outlook. Even if we started a new colony of hardcore, narcissistic moral relativists, we would definitely see them practice a very similar moral code to what exists today given time.

The driving force for changes in moral outlook has been changes in these outside circumstances. It's not about "getting it right", it's about understanding that morality is moulded through everchanging outside circumstances and there's no way to halt this. It matters as little that the slavers thought they were objectively morally correct that you might think such-and-such is objectively morally correct, time will change these outside circumstances and moral views will shift in accordance with these changes. History at least has the clear message that whether you think your views are objectively correct or subjective, those views are going to transform in time regardless.

Historically and today, moral absolutism has not actually been an impediment to the powerful and there's really no denying that. Kings literally viewed themselves as divine and saw opposition to them as very seriously morally condemnable. Moral relativism at least makes it obvious that the king is simply doing whatever is convenient for them and is just one person, moral absolutism made them believe that they were objectively correct for doing what they did. You can still see this today with religions like Islam in many countries, moral absolutism there unambiguously enshrines gender discrimination as a moral necessity. Across the world, many governments see homosexuality as objectively immoral, the oppressed homosexual has absolutely no recourse.

I think moral relativism is genuinely better for society than moral absolutism. Under moral absolutism, the stakes can go high, our disagreement is a literal fight for the moral goodness of our society whereas, under moral relativism, people can just accept that different people have different views and sometimes that's okay. Under moral relativism, saying something like "homosexuality is wrong" really demands some logical justification, because your moral opinion just doesn't matter that much when it's already accepted that people are going to disagree. Moral absolutism can be much more forceful because people who disagree with you are actually just morally wrong for doing so, that's not theory, that's just the reality in many countries. You are not entering a debate about i.e homosexuality, you are questioning a moral absolute and that makes things so difficult.

I think more relativistic societies are better places to live and more moral according to my views than societies that practice more absolute morality. I don't believe that's a coincidence, honestly and fairly debating moral issues is just more difficult when morality is absolute and dislodging harmful moral views is much more difficult.

Perhaps most importantly, moral absolutism is just a logically flawed concept, it will never be like science because science is the study of real-world implications whereas morality is a code for behaviour. Refuting a scientific fact without evidence is like banging your head against a wall and saying the wall doesn't exist, the reality described by the scientific fact still operates how it does regardless of your opinion. Whereas even if you say that honesty is objectively virtuous, regardless of your argumentation or proof, I can simply disagree with you. I can lie as I choose and whether that turns out well or poorly for me is independent of your opinion. Even God needed hell and heaven, otherwise, what does it matter if you disobey the commandments? They're just words.

People naturally recognise hierarchies and think in hierarchical terms and fail to agree to a non-hierarchical structure. It's not just about actually ranking high on hierarchies but acting in a manner that creates the impression of superiority. Whinging on the internet is aggressive, condescending, patronising and almost always reinforces or constructs a hierarchical outlook. I mean, your OP is actually a pretty good example of this isn't it? You constructed a group of "whingers" who are kind of useless and destructive, doesn't it at least feel a little good to feel these people are less useful or whatever else than you?

I think that's just how humans are, nothing can be done about it.

Yes, Nazi Germany is a much better comparison to modern China than comparing it to Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union because Nazi Germany was an advanced capitalistic economy. Which ties back into, why did the cold war happen in the first place? Why was the US interested in ensuring China did not become communist? It's because the US is an advanced capitalistic economy, they want markets for their goods, communism threatens that. The US got what they wanted and the price China paid was the abandoning of communism.

Even if China has socialism, the businesses that are owned by the government are highly competitive and profit-driven, it resembles all the worst parts of capitalism that communism was supposed to do away with. China's socialist element resembles capitalism in all of the ways communism took issue with as an ideology. It makes no sense for China to go backwards and their foreign and domestic policy tells you all you need to know - that have abandoned the idea of communism completely.

Communism is dead in the 21st century, the ideology is either abandoned or in the process of being abandoned by any country who claimed they followed it.

That is life to some extent, however, first, "it is the journey which matters, not the destination", sometimes acquiring things in of itself is enjoyable such as a skill or getting fit or whatever. The experience itself is rewarding. Then there's the joy of acquiring these things and their value which fuels the drive, you work to make meaningful relationships or an enjoyable career that enriches your life, improves your psychology and brings about positive emotions.

So even though there's "no end game" and you're going to die and your life is meaningless, you won't enjoy life by doing nothing, wanting nothing and caring about nothing, so you're really left with no choice but to play the game.

You can call whatever you want it: authoritarianism, fascism or capitalism, to make some point of a complex issue, yet that doesn't change China — ssu

It is about correctly labelling China, nobody is trying to change them with labels. The CCP resembles something like Nazi Germany, an advanced capitalist economy with a totalitarian government. What did Deng Xiaoping do? He instituted limited capitalism, he opened his country up for foreign investment and he utilised the geopolitical situation to his advantage. China utilised Western capitalism and Western geopolitics to achieve its economic growth, it was not a result of whether they're democratic or authoritarian... unless we're talking geopolitics.

If the CCP acts like they're a communist government and calls themselves a communist government then there's no reason to dispute it. If they call themselves communist and their policies are the antithesis of communism, then calling them communist just means you got fooled, no? Just like when someone believed any of the thousands of lies Trump told, they were fooled by those lies. That's all this is, governments lie but we don't need to believe those lies, if we know they can't be true then we call a lie a lie and that's the correct thing to do.

Pay is either competitive or exploitative, factories are run to maximise output and the average worker has no voice. There is unequal pay, class divisions and wealth inequality. The CCP owns businesses but most of them are aimed at maximising profit just like any other business. Instead of the CCP relinquishing control, allowing the state to "die out", they're constantly finding new ways to expand their control and becoming increasingly totalitarian. The CCP runs a hypercompetitive, profit-driven economy and a totalitarian government that has total control over a politicised army, spies across the world and surveillance on its own people to stamp out any dissent.

Just like we don't call a country a democracy just because its in their name or because the ruling party claims they had fair elections. If you want to call the CCP communist, may as well call North Korea a democracy. What do you think the bare minimum should be for a country to demonstrate that it is in fact communist and not simply saying that for whatever propaganda purpose it may serve?

You can't refute the idea that China isn't communist by saying they're socialist because these two things aren't the same. China is a mixed economy with both capitalist and socialist aspects and that is the factual reality, regardless of what anyone says. Workers in China are exploited by the factory owners, China has a class-based society with massive wealth inequality, China has billionaire business owners, the population buys from businesses what they need and so on. Party rhetoric should be considered propaganda, if you ignored it, there's no way you could come to the conclusion that the CCP is actually communist just by looking at the country they govern and their policies.

China is not communist and for many of the same reasons that the US did not want communism to spread, China should not want communism either. They want to open markets for their businesses, to drive the economic growth of China and maintain the rule of the CCP. The belt and road initiative (BRI) is one example of China's foreign policy, nations like Pakistan scare off Western investment and create opportunities for China. Pakistan owes Chinese banks loans that they can't repay, such investments, China is making across the world, the purpose is geopolitical and economic but it's more comparable to 1800s British imperialism than cold war era ideological expansion.

Race directly impacts appearence, like eye colour, hair colour, bone structure, height and so on. In this day and age, with internet dating being the main way people hook up, the largest factor which distinguishes your options is appearence. If you only wanted to match up with people of a particular race, you would still have way too many options to choose from than you could ever need. The idea that race-preference is racism is shallow, people select based on appearence and race affects appearence. I think those who have pointed out that someone could prefer a race based on behaviour-based stereotypes or fetishism have an argument. When you accept how superficial dating is, where people often only meet based on mutual attraction, based almost entirely on looks, then you accept that race is a component of that.

People should be able to evaluate racial features unimpeded when it comes to deciding what they find attractive, even if it's unfair, the sexual marketplace is inherently unfair to begin with.

Morality is an unavoidable biological reality, created by hormones, emotions and psychology. Morality justifies itself to the intellect, just like, sexual attraction or emotion. Logic doesn't justify morality, morality is woven into the logic we use by this biological reality. You can direct its shape somewhat but you can't turn it off, morality is a part of what it means to be human.

"You" are your consciousness and "your body" is what you control, you could be given an entirely new body and you'd still be "you".

Maybe it is semantics but I don't think what matters is whether the comments are true but what it means for the comments to be true. The intentions of the speaker don't necessarily matter either, it's about what the listener takes from what is said. Whether that's being flattered or insulted, whether that's feeling understood or misunderstood, and the list goes on. Simplicity is another such thing, and really, so is "being judged or pigeon-holed" like @Tom Storm suggests. Whether something is taken positively or negatively is based on the interpretation of the listener on the comments. Intent can be clarified, misunderstandings can be cleared up but not always.

The context matters immensely but I think simplifying things can be done in a way that most people will accept. If it demonstrates your care and goodwill, being appropriate and considerate then it should be accepted. If that is the case then we are just conflating separate issues, we can simplify things if it is done in the correct way and if it is done carelessly then it is the carelessness that has caused a problem.

It mostly depends on how the belief in another's "simplicity" is articulated or conveyed. If I said, "wow, you've got life figured out, x, y and z, that's all you need". I think this would be accepted even if it makes it appear like I think I've got them figured out and that they've got fairly simple interests. Even in your examples about Z telling X not to eat cookies, the issue is basically how the message is conveyed, X understands Z has their best interests at heart and isn't trying to be offensive and that's why that message might be accepted. if X thought Z was implying something negative or being nasty then it wouldn't be received well or if X thought what Z suggested reflected badly on them then they would also be unhappy with the comments.

Don't evaluate a comment by its truth value when you're looking to understand its psychological impact. Comments can indicate a person's thoughts and feelings, they can characterise people, highlight or emphasise certain things about a person and so on. I do think we can say simplification is generally going to be received poorly.

People don't like being stereotyped, judged, pigeon-holed and generally want to be treated fairly. That means acknowledging the breadth of facts and emotional factors that play a role in a situation, not picking out a single feature of it in isolation, which will likely misrepresent the person. Doing this also reflects badly on you because the ulterior motives for misrepresenting someone or ignoring potentially inconvenient factors are likely the result of ill-intent, apathy, condescension or dishonesty.

A thorough view or comment at least shows that you put some effort into understanding that person or the situation. It shows that you're trying to be honest and considerate of the other person. So I think it's usually going to be received better but not necessarily, sometimes people don't want to be analysed so thoroughly and feel uncomfortable about it. Anyway, I think your comments on this topic are very generalised, so the "its more complicated than that" answer is the gist of what I had to say.

The reason things are the way they are now is basically due to the news media. The main ways for people to "know" the world has been corrupted, the news is not there to inform but almost literally to support particular political views. The result is that based on the kinds of information sources you have, your worldview may be entirely reasonable and logical but since many of these sources are corrupted and manipulative, the end result is that people can't understand each other.

I see moral responsibility as a judgement made by an intelligent being because it only exists as something asserted by an intelligent being. — Judaka

The keyword here is only, does a chair only exist as a belief? No, a chair is a physical object that can be touched and seen. When we are dealing with metrics like these, the way we prove the existence of chairs is simple. I gave the examples of dogs and chimps to hypothesise that the uniformity in our moral judgements is likely due to our shared biology. It is not because Jane is factually lacking in moral responsibility and everyone can just see the truth.

You would likely not agree with the ideas about what people should accept moral responsibility for which existed hundreds or thousands of years ago. Based on that trend, people will not agree with how you see moral responsibility in a hundred or hundreds of years in the future. Even when your obvious goes against the beliefs of other cultures and people, where does your confidence come from? If we took ten people who had views identical about the objectivity of morality, from different places around the world, at different times, you'd all disagree with each other. Do you even deny that?

Imagine that punishing Jane for a crime you know she did not commit would nevertheless be extremely helpful and deter others from committing such crimes (for everyone else is convinced Jane did it). Well, even if it is overall justified to punish Jane, it is quite obvious that she will have been dealt an injustice.
Why? Because she doesn't 'deserve' to be punished.
Moral responsibility is not an 'idea'. It is something we have an idea 'of'. That doesn't mean it's an idea. I have an idea of you. That doesn't mean you are an idea. Yet that is how you are reasoning, yes? We have an idea of moral responsibility, therefore moral responsibility is an idea? If that's not the fallacious basis upon which you've come to your now no doubt irrevocable conclusion, kindly provide the valid means by which you did so. — Bartricks

If something is "quite obvious", does that mean it is no longer possible for it to exist only as a judgement? It does mean something but not that. There is a biological basis for concepts such as "fairness" understood by many creatures less intelligent than us. Even a dog or a chimp will become irate if it believes it has been treated unfairly. However, that is based on their perspective, it is just their idea that they've been treated unfairly, we don't have to agree. Our uniformity, where we all agree that Jane has been treated unfairly can be explained in this alternative way, our shared biology. It is not evidence that moral responsibility exists as something more than a perspective.

I see moral responsibility as a judgement made by an intelligent being because it only exists as something asserted by an intelligent being. Where else can we see moral responsibility? If there is a circumstance where it's more than an idea then where can someone see it?

There are many areas where we have people assume moral responsibility where it really hasn't helped. Drug addiction, obesity, poor performance in school, poverty, inability to hold a job, issues related to depression and suicide and the list goes on. Basically, the statistics and science often contradict the moral narrative. Many issues where the line between moral deviant and victim is blurred. An individual can be singled out and we can identify how this person could take actions to get themselves into a better situation, anecdotes are given as the evidence that the advice works, even if statistically the advice doesn't work. It's something of the equivalent of saying gambling is a great way to make money and pointing out someone who won the jackpot, even though statistically, we can see gambling has the opposite effect.

It's all well and good to feel morally responsible for something but if the statistics show that someone with your circumstances is generally suffering the same fate, are your feelings really accomplishing anything?

When it comes to crime for example, in 99.99% of cases, the person committing the crime is doing something self-destructive, illogical and with disastrous implications for themselves. The more egregious the crime, the truer that is. It is not the action of a rational, educated and mentally well person with many options and there are generally underlying issues that lead to the crime. In most cases where someone is taking moral responsibility, they themselves are in fact also a loser in that situation.

I don't really know what "moral responsibility is impossible" means because responsibility is just an intellectual idea and it exists if someone says it exists, to them, no matter what. However, I do think that for much of what we do that is wrong, there are serious external factors which share responsibility with us. Sometimes, it seems futile to insist people take responsibility when the statistics or science indicate that the issue is clearly bigger than them. It'll be interesting to see if when we have more knowledge about how various nature or nurture circumstances correlate with specific behaviours, whether public opinion will lean towards seeing those behaviours as just the result of bad luck. Turning an immoral action into an unfortunate one or an immoral person into a victim.

I think there is a stigma against suicide and that any attempt to portray it as positive by any means is looked down upon or underreported if at all. Think about it, it's your life. Who says you can't "quit" so to speak? We dislike talking about death overall and as I mentioned are obsessed with living to the point that we keep people on life support when they are unable to function as a human being. We even made up afterlives to feel better about it, at least I think so. But that's another can of worms. — Darkneos

Besides the parts of your arguments which are demonstrably incorrect, which you did not even try to defend further, you've got "perhaps" and "think about it" to challenge decades of science and study. Your worldview is not based on logic and honesty as you claim, it's created through a unique interpretation which selectively acknowledges and emphasises pieces of information to create a particular narrative. When in doubt, assume whatever suits you, that's pretty much your argument summed up, we both know you can't back up your claims, that's why it's "perhaps" and such.

You've got an excuse for everything, it's a whole conspiracy against suicide and the evidence or arguments don't matter because of "death anxiety". My last comment, you chose to address only what you thought could be ignored by "death anxiety" yet again, even though your main argument is demonstrably invalid and false. I don't know why you're intent on promoting suicide but I imagine it's a personal story. Anyway, I don't think you have anything left to do but insist on things you can't back up and dismiss facts with wishful thinking, I'm out.

Happiness only counts as a reason when you have to stay alive in which case it makes sense to fill that time and make it enjoyable since you have to be here. If you don't it's a moot argument. — Darkneos

Pleasure becomes irrelevant and you avoid all future discomfort, agony or pain. There is simply not a reason to live, to be born even — Darkneos

Says you? Anyone can have a reason for doing anything that they fucking please, it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you. I can choose to live because I want to take care of my pot plant, that's my reason. "When you're dead that pot plant won't matter anymore" or "Pot plants suck" doesn't invalidate my reasoning, you can't say I have no reason just because you don't like the reason, that's not how this works.

By any metric for choosing life, death is better by all counts. — Darkneos

That's not true and even you don't think that. You've literally argued - and I agree, that death simply mutes any metric by making them irrelevant. If I choose based on what allows me to raise as many pot plants as possible then death loses, obviously. I don't care if you don't like my reason.

You don't know that. Perhaps they are calm and happy but see the futility of life. I'd like to think that happiness clouds our judgment and makes life appear better than it really is. — Darkneos

...

Now you're just dealing with a different set of facts to me, "perhaps suicidals are generally calm and happy"? So you know that anything official I cite is going to be on my side, I can just idk, throw a random link in here:

https://www.verywellmind.com/why-do-people-commit-suicide-1067515

Could throw in 100s if I wanted, polls, experts, characterising suicide the same way but you've got "perhaps" on your side, guess that's even. If someone is calm and happy and wants to die then they're a massive minority who nobody even talks about, I'd have to hear them out to understand where they're coming from but I don't really care, people can kill themselves if they want just don't tell me that it's the only sane choice or that people are just talking negatively about suicide only due to "death anxiety" or whatever.

There is a difference though, death today means never having to wait 50 years or dealing with that much life. — Darkneos

Sure, I'm just saying you're not missing out on anything if you died today.

You are just saying that what I'm saying does not apply to you, only others, which again, is very normal. That you think you see the truth while others perceive this issue through their emotional and psychological circumstances is again, very human of you and exactly what I expect to see. You're just being honest while others are being manipulated by their insecurities and fears, is that right? Said every person ever.

Death today or death in fifty years, there is no difference but I do agree with this :

o see through the "reasons" as nothing more that rationalization of the survival drive, that there is no good reason to live. Yet the drive is very strong and few overcome it. — Darkneos

I've already argued something similar to this, the question is how is that drive overcome? Is it overcome through distress, depression and negative emotion or is it overcome by, being very honest and logical? Hopefully, we could at least agree that the former can be true, suicides can be impulsive or they can be planned out but people who choose to kill themselves are generally not both calm and happy.

Any good reason anybody has for anything they can only have because they're alive. Any ambition, any relationship, any activity, any reason for doing any of these things is also a reason to live. If someone is excitedly planning out their day, or next year, or looking forward to things they'll get to do and your mission is to tell them that they're insane for not wanting to kill themselves, because, why? All I've heard from you is explaining people away with death anxiety and saying they're reasons are not good. What is your actual argument about why people should choose death over life?

That kind of censorship doesn't exist here, even though there's no question where most moderators sit on the political spectrum, they debate and argue with positions they don't like just like everyone else. They don't just delete people's posts because they don't like what you said and I think the thread you're referring to is low quality as it was closed for.

A trademark trait of depression is honing in on the negative, interpreting things negatively, tunnel visioning on what is negative and being impervious to outside opinions. Such as a person feeling like they are a burden on their family and friends regardless of what they say, or feeling like a failure regardless of what other people think. Your worldview is bleak and dark, because it's being seen by someone who has a bleak and dark view, not because the world is actually as bad as you think it is. Logic is manipulated by emotion and psychology much more than the other way around. I think it's very human of you to notice that in others but not in yourself because that's pretty much your entire explanation for why people disagree with you.

I'm not sure what your motivation here is, you want people to realise suicide is the only sane choice? You want people to realise they only oppose suicide due to their death anxiety or because taking it seriously would challenge their life's meaning?