Moral decay, is it real?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

There seems to be a lot of lying.

With covid, lying about death reports, Fauci stonecold lying about gain of function research, lying about the origin of covid, lying about ivermectine, lying about the possiblities of immune escape.

And the nyt lying about Trump and Russia, for years. etc.

Talk.origins also has a history of lying, most noteably lying in relation to the holocaust.

And personally in many years I have never debated a single honest person on the issue of how subjectivity works. Hundreds, or maybe more than a thousand.

Just straighforwardly, rationally, debate how subjectivity works. Nobody will do it. It is so disgusting to find out, nobody gives a fuck about anything.

Because reasonably, subjectivity is one of the first things you should want to know how it works. Because that is primary knowledge for dealing with your emotions, dealing with family and friends, and also religion.

Then next comes objectivity, which although essential, is of lesser importance than subjectivity. Most of it's importance is because it is essential for learning about how subjectivity works.

From the point of view of someone who has basic understanding of how subjectivity works, then people currently are generally very shitty. I cannot imagine anyone who understands how subjectivity works, having a different opinion on that.

Because:
1. The stupidity of not understanding something very simple. The knowledge of which is directly available to everyone in common discourse.
2. Then the haughtiness of not grasping how it works, even when it is explained, and, not having any competing idea on how subjectivity works, but not having a critical understanding of it at all.
3. The obvious benefit of understanding how subjectivity works in relation to the holocaust. In relation to nazi ideology erronuously having an objectified personal character, as the center of it.
4. And generally throwing out the obvious benefit of basic understanding of
how personal relations work, and even how the universe fundamentally works.

So you are all retards, and haughty. Including generally all creationists, who are sitting on the truth of how subjecitivity works, but are equally unwilling to have a critical understanding of it.

Everyone is also a big tease by saying they are rational, which is just pretending. They are never rational with the issue of subjectivity.

So, retard, haughty, that is the judgment I come up with, for people unwilling to have a critical understanding of how subjectivity works. That is a fair judgment, or else what other judgment would be fair for people who are that way?

Anyway, I think the moral decay is actually real, that people's morality is getting worse, and that it is caused primarily by ignorance of how subjectivity works.

Which doesn't mean that people become holy upon learning how it works. It is just that with knowledge of subjectivity, then you just still have the ordinary evil, like lust and greed, while with ignorance of subjectivity, then you get a combination of crazy and evil. And the crazy evil causes accellerated, systematic, moral decay. Which is what we have now in the mainstream of society.

[Lawyer Daggett]

> Which doesn't mean that people become holy upon learning how it works. It is just that with knowledge of subjectivity, then you just still have the ordinary evil, like lust and greed, while with ignorance of subjectivity, then you get a combination of crazy and evil. And the crazy evil causes accelerated, systematic, moral decay. Which is what we have now in the mainstream of society.

No. It's not "real".
Among the best evidence against your diatribe is the fact that your very definitions of
subjective and objective are essentially unique to you. Your claims are inconsistent with
history with respect to how the very words you use have been historically used. This
produces a historical conflict with your assertion that there has been a "decline". A decline
would require a precursor that was significantly more in agreement with your special
idiosyncratic conception of the world --- but there is no historical evidence supporting
a broad acceptance of your special conception.

Specifically; decayed from want? From some past that never existed?

Nobody of significance has ever agreed with you. You have no citations of people using
'subjective' and 'objective' with the meaning you attempt to assign to those words. Your
arguments are not just empirically void, though they are that. They are semantically void
as they are incoherent in an historical context. They lack meaning. As such, they are not
so much wrong as they are meaningless.

I am not unaware of the fact that such a criticism is in some aspect unfair as English
is not your first language. As such, great deference is due to minor irregularities in
your application of the rules of grammar and syntax. But there is not simple pathway
of rescue that restores legitimacy to the words you have committed to. Or if there is,
I am inadequate to discover it. You will have to consult a qualified compatriot to
rescue your claims into coherency. So far, there's no there there.

[Nando Ronteltap]

Creationist logic, as I have explained it, is the logic used in common discourse.

The moral decay is caused by increased education. Conditioning the mind towards objectivity and fact, leaving subjectivity forgotten about. But also the higher pyschological pressure to do your best, that comes with increased education, which tends to corrupt the meaning of choosing, and the concept of subjectivity with it.

And obviously it is caused by evolution theory, the direct intellectual opposition to the concept of subjectivity, as you display right now.

I can see on facebook, the hundreds and thousands of people who are continuously glorying in objectivity, science, fact, as opposed to religion, faith, which faith is a form of subjectivity. And that's not about them having some alternative critical understanding of subjectivity, besides creationism, that is about them being totally cluelless about the issue, and not mentioning it.

So while in times past they did not strictly adhere to the creationist conceptual scheme, they did actually support creationism, and the general logic in it, of a creator that is subjective, known by faith, and not fact. And also for human beings, people did believe in the subjective human spirit.

But not if you go too far back to the 1930's , because then people were materialist eugenicists, who believed that personal character can be established as fact of biology.

And after the holocause intellectuals were aware that it was caused by social darwinism, and so in response to the holocaust postmodernism was popularized, which philosophy asserts there is subjectivity in objective statements. So to say, subjectivity was popularized again, in response to the holocaust.

So there is some mix of things which increases and decreases acceptance of subjectivity, but there is no doubt whatsoever that there is now a massive decrease in it.


Op donderdag 2 februari 2023 om 04:35:12 UTC+1 schreef Lawyer Daggett:

[*Hemidactylus*]

Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
> Creationist logic, as I have explained it, is the logic used in common discourse.
>

Oxymoron.

>
> The moral decay is caused by increased education. Conditioning the mind
> towards objectivity and fact, leaving subjectivity forgotten about. But
> also the higher pyschological pressure to do your best, that comes with
> increased education, which tends to corrupt the meaning of choosing, and
> the concept of subjectivity with it.
>

Boomers were subjectivists, some Nietzschean hippies in the egoist “me”
generation of existential authenticity, thumbing noses at duty and
authority and burning draft cards. Some would break from the tankie Old
Left and form the Marcuse infused New Left. Others would go on to embrace
the Reaganite ethos that “greed is good” and become yuppies, trading in
their commodified Birkenstocks for BMWs. Neoliberalism would conquer the
evil empire and commodify everything even the sense of rebellion in punk
and grunge. Prosperity gospel would capitalize Jesus himself.

>
> And obviously it is caused by evolution theory, the direct intellectual
> opposition to the concept of subjectivity, as you display right now.
>

Nope. More long the lines of philosophical shards after Nietzsche. Some
Eastern metaphysics. Some existentialism or Frankfurt school offshoots
(Marcuse and Fromm). The 68 rebellion of Situationism under Debord that
would inspire Punk before it was recuperated by the system was huge.

>
> I can see on facebook, the hundreds and thousands of people who are
> continuously glorying in objectivity, science, fact, as opposed to
> religion, faith, which faith is a form of subjectivity. And that's not
> about them having some alternative critical understanding of
> subjectivity, besides creationism, that is about them being totally
> cluelless about the issue, and not mentioning it.
>

Ironic in that you are clueless about the issues.

>
> So while in times past they did not strictly adhere to the creationist
> conceptual scheme, they did actually support creationism, and the general
> logic in it, of a creator that is subjective, known by faith, and not
> fact. And also for human beings, people did believe in the subjective human spirit.
>

There is a reductive scientism that elbows out subjectivity.

>
> But not if you go too far back to the 1930's , because then people were
> materialist eugenicists, who believed that personal character can be
> established as fact of biology.
>

There was an exclusivity in religion, such as the curse of Ham in
Judeochristian faiths or dhimmi in Islam. Even Buddhists are bigots as in
Burma and Sri Lanka. Eugenics was variegated. It was ableist but not
necessarily racist nor leading to extermination.

>
> And after the holocause intellectuals were aware that it was caused by social darwinism,

Laissez faire “social darwinism” was about rights to ignore the state so
not leading to a government intervention like the Holocaust.

> and so in response to the holocaust postmodernism was popularized, which
> philosophy asserts there is subjectivity in objective statements. So to
> say, subjectivity was popularized again, in response to the holocaust.
>

Paul de Man had a checkered past.

The rise of fascism impacted the Frankfurt School directly and they too
responded.

Postmodernism is variegated. Grand narratives like creation concept
schemes, (social) darwinism, etc are exploded yet postmodernism as
narrative scheme is untouched.

>
> So there is some mix of things which increases and decreases acceptance
> of subjectivity, but there is no doubt whatsoever that there is now a
> massive decrease in it.
>

Based on your blinkered armchair perspective?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 11:18:16 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>Nando Ronteltap <nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>> Creationist logic, as I have explained it, is the logic used in common discourse.
>>
>Oxymoron.
>>

Too many letters; strike the first three.

And you should explain to him that "explained" is not
shorthand for "ranted without evidence".
>
<snip>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Burkhard]

Shouldn't he be the one that argues that moral decay is not only real, but inevitable and probably a good thing? I mean at the heart of his notion of making moral choices is quantum mechanics, or as he calls it "things can turn one way or the other". The classical Schroedinger cat used a small amount of decaying radioactive substance, where we only have a statistical value to describe the decay. I suppose moral decay in hos model should work the same way, "moral quanta" which give you moral results in an entirely arbitrary fashion as they decay

[Nando Ronteltap]

Ofcourse your choices Burkhard, are superior. Because your choices are based on figuring out what is best.

Thus is always the argument of the stupid and immoral.

There is a small issue that things at the quantum level don't appear to be autonomous. That things are simply left in an undecided state. But otherwise, your ridicule of the spiritual worth of the decision of the position of a single photon, that is just ridiculously meanspirited. You don't need to ridicule insects, or photons, for their lack of spiritual worth.

I don't believe your brain can operate without electrons in superposition, and being decided. You have no argumentation, because ridicule is not an argument.

Logic all points to creationism. You have no logic.








Op maandag 6 februari 2023 om 22:05:16 UTC+1 schreef Burkhard: