How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

[Azuma Hazuki]

Sorry, that surname associates in my head with a certain Charles, and abut all I know about him is that he folds Oragami scorpions. I'm pretty ignorant on the subject because, for whatever reason, titilating myself with the details of criminal insanity has never been my thing. Van Gogh's paintings, however, stagger me.

So, whateveryour message was you'll have to translate.

Translation: quit sucking your own dick in public; you don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do, you don't act anywhere near as enlightened as you claim to be, and you're doing a lot of damage with you own version of "bothsidesdoithurrrr."

 

[Jhhnn]

My belief or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to whether mutation and selection can build your brain over billions of years. That your mind goes to God when I ask that question should tell you something.

It tells me that we try to explain what we don't understand, one way or another. Some of us are willing to believe that science has yet to explain a lot of things. We accept the uncertainty in that. Others need more certainty & attribute what is merely unknown to supernatural agency.

 

[abj13]

Well I am sorry to say that I am too stupid to know what meta-ethical moral relativism is, if it applies or does not. All I can do is try as best I can to speak using words, you hopefully know, that clarify what I feel, so, I can't comment on whether we are destined to agree or disagree.

What I can perhaps do is tell you how I feel about the rest of your words. I have no problem with 2+2=4, however the fact that it's four and we can agree on that doesn't tell me we know anything that is relevant to the situation we are discussing here. Some of us here seem to want to assert that our feelings about buckshot have a mathematical precision and I am saying that unlike 2+2=4, which evokes no triggered emotional response, the reactions to buckshot are chock full of them. I am saying also that where those feelings are unrecognized, suppressed, for example, they introduce unconscious bias. Anytime something is suppressed that is hidden behind some sort of intellectually created structure, so ethical, moral believe, there arises a need to defend it, a fear it will fall, and a terror of what is suppressed will surface. If that's meta -ethical moral relativism then I'm in.

Note also that even when one may be on the right track one can be on it for the wrong reasons.

What I have done is conclude that I do not know where buckshot is coming from. I am also neither educationally qualified to argue esoteric out in the weeds notions of it, and don't have the time or the interest or likely the talent to acquire such information, but I also have full faith that whatever the truth is it will out or has already has. I hold the consensus view without any need or terror of being right or wrong and am thus unable to generate the outrage so many do here toward him. But I can say that all the kerfuffle he generates tells me there's a dead rat hiding somewhere. I call that kind of rat ego attachment, unexamined assumptions that require rationalizations of one kind or another to stay suppressed.

In some ways you are and are not arguing for a meta-ethical moral relativism. This type of moral relativism describes that one's viewpoint/culture/traditions guides what is a moral act and that there is not a universal moral act. That would mean that any act deemed good/bad/evil by commonly accepted morals in our society could be deemed the exact opposite in another society. To give an extreme example, what may be seen as rape here, would be seen as a perfectly acceptable act in another culture.

On the more extremes of this approach is that there are no universal truths. 2+2= whatever you want it to mean. The sky doesn't scatter light 474-476 nm, it is whatever number you want it to be. Pi is not the ratio between the circumference divided by two time the radius, it can be 2 today, 6.14159 tomorrow. If everything is relative and dependent on one's culture, then there are no universal truths.

It seems that you agree that there are universal truths (2+2=4). However, that's the issue with buckshot. He adjusts truths to fit his reality while sensible and just people fit their reality to truths. Case in point, he made several false statements about biology. Numerous people point out that his statements from any objective viewpoint are false. Instead of articulating why his reality is valid, he provides zero evidence and accuses everyone of lying about him. He complains about people making posts only about him, and turns around and to make posts centered only about other posters. He claims to fight misinformation, but then repeatedly and consistently provides false information. He manipulates universal truths to justify the validity of his posts on this forum. He complains about one issue and turns around and commits the very immoral act he rails against.

To suggest he represents just some "other viewpoint" is a mischaracterization of his posts. If you accept there are universal truths, then he is the very poster who warps an universal truth when it is convenient and justifies his logic. That is why, at a fundamental level, people disagree with his posting style here so much. It is not just another view, he bastardizes logic,objectivity, intellectual honesty, and universal truths for his own internal rationalizations.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

It's possible for morals to be relative and still real. While they're relative in the sense that they're not fixed, absolute Platonic ideals floating in some inaccessible realm of forms, they also supervene on (or emerge from) the properties of beings with moral machinery, like us.

That means that no matter how many times you, say, started humanity from scratch and observed to see what moral facts pop up, they're always going to be broadly similar. No run that fails to produce something like "do not kill without justification" is going to last very long, for example.

 

[abj13]

It's possible for morals to be relative and still real. While they're relative in the sense that they're not fixed, absolute Platonic ideals floating in some inaccessible realm of forms, they also supervene on (or emerge from) the properties of beings with moral machinery, like us.

That means that no matter how many times you, say, started humanity from scratch and observed to see what moral facts pop up, they're always going to be broadly similar. No run that fails to produce something like "do not kill without justification" is going to last very long, for example.

I agree. I see the world not as 100% black and white, and not 100% shades of gray. If there is to be discussion of thoughts on anything, there must be a fundamental definitions/logic in which to exchange information.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, it's the source of you conflation and misrepresentation of what science is.

Its you who is conflating the two.

 

[buckshot24]

The fact that you cant put forth a competing hypothesis should tell you something. Witness the apple fall, its problary newton, it dont fits all but its good enough for now. From your assumed position you gave zilch, zero, nothing. You are a nothingburger sir. Step up if you want to continue.

That's not how it works.

 

[agent00f]

Well I am sorry to say that I am too stupid to know what meta-ethical moral relativism is, if it applies or does not. All I can do is try as best I can to speak using words, you hopefully know, that clarify what I feel, so, I can't comment on whether we are destined to agree or disagree.

What I can perhaps do is tell you how I feel about the rest of your words. I have no problem with 2+2=4, however the fact that it's four and we can agree on that doesn't tell me we know anything that is relevant to the situation we are discussing here. Some of us here seem to want to assert that our feelings about buckshot have a mathematical precision and I am saying that unlike 2+2=4, which evokes no triggered emotional response, the reactions to buckshot are chock full of them. I am saying also that where those feelings are unrecognized, suppressed, for example, they introduce unconscious bias. Anytime something is suppressed that is hidden behind some sort of intellectually created structure, so ethical, moral believe, there arises a need to defend it, a fear it will fall, and a terror of what is suppressed will surface. If that's meta -ethical moral relativism then I'm in.

Note also that even when one may be on the right track one can be on it for the wrong reasons.

What I have done is conclude that I do not know where buckshot is coming from. I am also neither educationally qualified to argue esoteric out in the weeds notions of it, and don't have the time or the interest or likely the talent to acquire such information, but I also have full faith that whatever the truth is it will out or has already has. I hold the consensus view without any need or terror of being right or wrong and am thus unable to generate the outrage so many do here toward him. But I can say that all the kerfuffle he generates tells me there's a dead rat hiding somewhere. I call that kind of rat ego attachment, unexamined assumptions that require rationalizations of one kind or another to stay suppressed.

Moonbeam is mostly defending his own, in this case a fellow religious nut, because an attack on buckshot's supposed faith is basically an attack on his own ego.

And what if he proves to be legion? Wouldn't it be far more efficient to find some way to deal with the reactions he causes you to have? How does he get to you? It might just be that he could turn out to be the most valuable 'teacher' you ever ran into.

That's true enough, too many liberal don't believe that terribly degenerate people exist.

 

[agent00f]

Why do you have a negative emotional reaction to that. Do you want him punished? Is he breaking your moral code? What if his moral code, it he has one, demands that he break yours?

I noticed a long time ago that I always focused on the transgressions of others and never on how I was the same. I probably noticed that because I was told it was a sin to judge others but wanted to anyway, so I had to turn such a blind eye to myself.

You remind me so much of my self at times, brutally self image destructive. I used to hate myself so much I'd try to beat our all seeing Father to the punch and condemn myself before He could. I often think I eventually killed Him to make that pain stop.

I don't think you're too dumb to see that discouraging degeneracy makes the world a better place, even if your religious ego obligates you to pretend otherwise.

 

[cytg111]

That's not how it works.

It is exactly how it works, otherwise set forth a way it does.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Its you who is conflating the two.

Which word do you like more conflating or strawman?

 

[buckshot24]

It is exactly how it works, otherwise set forth a way it does.

You do not need a replacement to a dead theory in order to kill it. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Once aether was rejected they didn't know how light traveled through space. No replacement required.

 

[cytg111]

You do not need a replacement to a dead theory in order to kill it. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Once aether was rejected they didn't know how light traveled through space. No replacement required.

Not true and factually not true. Ether worked for Tesla within the bounds of his experiments. Ether was a hypothosis.. what is yours? You are being very dishonest here...

 

[agent00f]

You do not need a replacement to a dead theory in order to kill it. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Once aether was rejected they didn't know how light traveled through space. No replacement required.

Liberals are too dumb to figure buckshot wants to promote that god did it.

 

[buckshot24]

Not true and factually not true. Ether worked for Tesla within the bounds of his experiments. Ether was a hypothosis.. what is yours? You are being very dishonest here...

No, that is correct.

 

[agent00f]

No, that is correct.

This is where the dummies try to prove a pathological piece of shit liar is wrong.

 

[jackstar7]

You are being very dishonest here...

No, that is correct.

Finally.

 

[cytg111]

This is where the dummies try to prove a pathological piece of shit liar is wrong.

Well it must have entertainment value or you wouldnt be here

 

[agent00f]

Well it must have entertainment value or you wouldnt be here

I try to help people who can be.

 

[buckshot24]

Well it must have entertainment value or you wouldnt be here

Michelson and Morley tried to measure the aether and couldn't detect it. A wrong idea was removed which lead to better ideas like relativity. You don't need a replacement to reject some scientific idea. I don't need a replacement to challenge your faith in mutation and selection as a creative force.

 

[agent00f]

Michelson and Morley tried to measure the aether and couldn't detect it. A wrong idea was removed which lead to better ideas like relativity. You don't need a replacement to reject some scientific idea. I don't need a replacement to challenge your faith in mutation and selection as a creative force.

LOL @ pathological liar pretending his "better idea" isn't God. In all fairness buckshot is pretty good at it given how many liberals believe him.

 

[cytg111]

Michelson and Morley tried to measure the aether and couldn't detect it. A wrong idea was removed which lead to better ideas like relativity. You don't need a replacement to reject some scientific idea. I don't need a replacement to challenge your faith in mutation and selection as a creative force.

Didnt you hear? Ether is back in play though now referred to as the "Quantum Vacuum". Bla bla bla. Point being, competing theories.
What theory do you back, dishonest man?

 

[cytg111]

LOL @ pathological liar pretending his "better idea" isn't God. In all fairness buckshot is pretty good at it given how many liberals believe him.

I will give him that. It goes along that thinking "If only these powers were used for good." - It is sad. Bigly. Also a good reason to try to flip him.

 

[buckshot24]

Didnt you hear? Ether is back in play though now referred to as the "Quantum Vacuum". Bla bla bla. Point being, competing theories.
What theory do you back, dishonest man?

I don't need one to reject yours.

 

[agent00f]

I will give him that. It goes along that thinking "If only these powers were used for good." - It is sad. Bigly. Also a good reason to try to flip him.

He'll only flip if it's in his self-interest to do so. Liberals enabling his game only does the opposite.