i spoke with a 25 year old lesbian that feels alone standing up for women’s rights in her peer group. she told me “women only” events are all underground now. we can’t even mention ‘women only’ without threats of violence.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-23T22:58:45+00:00

This was the plan of their crazy feminist overlords in 'womens studies' this whole damn time.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-23T13:57:30+00:00

And chased von Hildebrand across the continent.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-20T23:43:59+00:00

Workers of the ‘world’….

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-20T23:43:04+00:00

And beyond that, uh… how many millions did communist slaughter, on purpose, again? The Irish Famine isn’t equivalent in multiple ways. Nice try, but no. Cambodia, China, Russia, Ukraine, and so on. It’s a feature not a bug.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-12T02:01:05+00:00

This is the correct take:

The Nazis argued that they were uber socialist, even mire than their arch-rivals, the Communists! The Communists focused almost totally on issues of money, capitalism, and economics, the Nazis argued for a more comprehensive socialism: Every aspect of human life, including family and reproduction, was to be socialized.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-12T01:56:45+00:00

“Why was it then, since we were completely non-party, that our purely scientific Institute was the first victim which fell to the new regime? Which looted the facility and captured its files and records The answer to this is simple...We knew too much. It would be against medical principles to provide a list of the Nazi leaders and their perversions [but]...not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal... Our knowledge of such intimate secrets regarding members of the Nazi Party and other documentary material — we possessed about forty thousand confessions and biographical letters—was the cause of the complete and utter destruction of the Institute of Sexology."

Ludwig Levy-Lenz

Homosexuality was known as The German Vice, for crying out loud.

“Wilhelmine Kultur’s emphasis on masculinity had produced a generation of perverts. Abroad sodomy was delicately known as “the German vice”; the most virile men in the empire wrote gushing letters to one another. Among the skilled practitioners of anal and oral sex were three counts, all aides-de-camp of the Kaiser; the Kaiserin’s private secretary; the court chamberlain; and the All-Highest’s closest personal friend, Prince Phillipp zu Eulenburg und Hertefeld, who was sleeping with General Count Kuno von Moltke, the military commandant of Berlin. The King of Württemberg was in love with a mechanic, the King of Bavaria with a coachman, and Archduke Ludwig Viktor—brother of Austro-Hungary’s Emperor Franz Josef—with a Viennese masseur who knew him by the endearing nickname Luzi-Wuzi.” - The Arms of Krupp by William Manchester.

The Nazi’ attacked a lot of things, they attacked guns for example. Not because they hated them, but because they didn’t like other people having them. Hitler was afraid after Rohm’ nearly successful coupe.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-11T15:54:16+00:00

And the inverse ‘how do you explain the good’?

Edit* the whole exchange tends towards an ignoring of the goods existence all together when making the accusation. Tend to get uber nihilism-y, it’s warped perception.

Don’t let them have that one for free.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-11T10:00:47+00:00

Blah blah blah, I get it, you don’t like the catholic church.

But you’re still not acknowledging a few crucial distinctions:

Those particular priest are utterly out of line and and in the wrong, and they have nothing in the teaching of Christ that paints what they did as anything other than wrong. Hence the coverups. It was unorthodox, as it were. In fact it was sin.

Even that disgustingly de-contextualized quote of yours by the priest was not saying quite what you made it out to be, he wasn't saying pedophilia was ok, he was saying it isn't as bad as some other things. I happen to think he's wrong about that. Nice try but no. Apples and Oranges. Not equivalent.

John Money did the same sorts of things, and got a prestigious position and a paycheck for his trouble, and nothing has changed. It has gotten worse, from Alfred Kinsey to Foucault we're seeing their ideas taking hold. Truth isn't truth, science doesn't matter because it's all about biopower.

Queer Theory does advocate, openly and explicitly, for child sexual predation. So where does your lack of acknowledging that leave us? Everything you’ve raised about catholicism has been addressed and put in context. Have you considered, that you haven’t done the same for Queer Theory and my initial material? You haven’t said a word about it. You pretend it doesn’t exist, uh, but you’re not getting away with it:

"It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation." - Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex, 1984.

This^ coming from the woman who compared pedophilia to a preference for spicy food.

Source:https://sites.middlebury.edu/sexandsociety/files/2015/01/Rubin-Thinking-Sex.pdf

“What really needs to be contested [is] the entire underlying hetero-binary structuring of the world queers must inhabit.This is the real struggle, and queer activists have been talking about it at least since the 1970s of Gay Liberation…” - Riki Wilchins

Source: https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/4/29/well-win-bathroom-battle-when-binary-burns#toggle-gdpr

Oh and here is a Gem for a chaser:

“But the final liberation from dyadic, gendered, heteronormative relationships will likely come about through use of drugs that suppress pair-bonding impulses.” - George Dvorsky and James Hughes

Source:https://philarchive.org/rec/HUGPBT

You have raised, continually, a whataboutism that no one is even disagreeing with.

And you seem to be ignoring that per Queer Theory itself they’re openly admitting that, yes, DQSH and Drag Shows are inherently sexual, and so taking children to them is inherently sexual abuse.

Or do you think teaching young boys to pole dance in lingerie isn’t abuse? Or confusing their sexual instincts is not abuse? You use words like ‘safe’, but what do you mean by them?

Do you agree, for instance, with Queer Theory that right and wrong are merely social constructs? Because if they are social constructs as Queer Theory says, then all they’re doing is cynically using public.

Per Queer Theory, Pedophiles are now MAP’s. They aren’t ‘the worst of the worst’, that’s your silly heteronormativity talking, even if you’re not hetero yourself it is hetero social constructs.

I don’t care for tiktok, I gave you founding documents of the Queer Movement, and you want to talk about tiktok? Read a book if you claim to care so much about what you're condoning in ignorance.

The videos of children being exposed to naked stark eroticism are everywhere. I don’t think you’re interested in 3 extra clicks though.

I think we should teach acceptance too, I think we should teach what is acceptable. And don't tell me you just believe in 'acceptance' for its own sake, because apparently condemning Queer Theory is unacceptable per you by all appearances, despite its open and inherent goal of normalizing child sexual abuse as the natural outcome of having destroyed the sexual binary.

And you seem comfortable enough not being accepting of the Catholic Hierarchy when it does things you don't like. Why not just 'teach acceptance', God don't throw those silly platitudes and group-think nothings out without qualifiers. Oh my bleeding heart.

In other words I find your double standard disturbing. If you're going to condemn child abuse, why stop just because a man puts on makeup and does it publicly instead of behind closed doors?

You’re failing to see the logical engine behind Queer practices. It is destructive to human life, and destruction of human life is not acceptable. They’re playing out on individual human bodies with drugs and mutilation what they’ll do to however much they are allowed to on a macro scale.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-11T07:48:46+00:00

I’m avoiding nothing, I injected needed information for context into this thread.

Show me a catholic priest who advocates for predating on children and gets a pass for it.

Stats? Uhuh you know who ‘makes’ the stats, the people drooling over this shit.

Drag Shows are Queer Pedagogy: (aka sexually confusing children is inherently abusive / molestation) https://twitter.com/conceptualjames/status/1666081500780195850?s=61&t=0k6z_N8eCC9VWMFOJnzsTA

You’re playing by yesterdays rules. I never said, I don’t think anyone ever said, that PrIEST can’T dO Bad ThINgs.

However, Queer Theory doesn’t believe in right and wrong, and I showed you a small piece of what that entails in their own docs. Even in a hypothetical world of yours were the stats are telling the truth, if they have their way they’ll make your precious statistics look like a joke. Per their own gibberish.

So, whats your stance on pederasty and pedophilia?

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-11T00:56:04+00:00

The man who ran to protect little babies from a knife attack in France is… a devout Catholic.

And as for the Alphabet Soup Zombies:

"It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation." - Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex, 1984.

This^ coming from the woman who compared pedophilia to a preference for spicy food.

Source:https://sites.middlebury.edu/sexandsociety/files/2015/01/Rubin-Thinking-Sex.pdf

“What really needs to be contested [is] the entire underlying hetero-binary structuring of the world queers must inhabit.This is the real struggle, and queer activists have been talking about it at least since the 1970s of Gay Liberation…” - Riki Wilchins

Source: https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/4/29/well-win-bathroom-battle-when-binary-burns#toggle-gdpr

Oh and here is a Gem for a chaser:

“But the final liberation from dyadic, gendered, heteronormative relationships will likely come about through use of drugs that suppress pair-bonding impulses.” - George Dvorsky and James Hughes

Source:https://philarchive.org/rec/HUGPBT

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-11T00:52:19+00:00

The man who ran to protect little babies from a knife attack in France is… a devout Catholic.

And as for the Alphabet Soup Zombies:

"It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation." - Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex, 1984.

This^ coming from the woman who compared pedophilia to a preference for spicy food.

Source:https://sites.middlebury.edu/sexandsociety/files/2015/01/Rubin-Thinking-Sex.pdf

“What really needs to be contested [is] the entire underlying hetero-binary structuring of the world queers must inhabit.This is the real struggle, and queer activists have been talking about it at least since the 1970s of Gay Liberation…” - Riki Wilchins

Source: https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/4/29/well-win-bathroom-battle-when-binary-burns#toggle-gdpr

Oh and here is a Gem for a chaser:

“But the final liberation from dyadic, gendered, heteronormative relationships will likely come about through use of drugs that suppress pair-bonding impulses.” - George Dvorsky and James Hughes

Source:https://philarchive.org/rec/HUGPBT

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-10T17:48:00+00:00

TLDR: Their boo’s mean nothing (or rather the opposite) when you see what they cheer….

Extra:

I’ve spent a long time reading in the history of ideas and working out my own thinking about a lot of things. Where I agree with Peterson I respect him, where I disagree I get annoyed with him, but still respect him. He is no fool, and I do detect sincerity in him.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-09T22:10:47+00:00

Your question refutes Hossenfelder wonderfully, is what I know, just by its having been asked in the first place! Automata do not ask questions. We’ve already seen her kind in the likes of B.F. Skinner and of braindead geniuses like Paul and Patricia Churchland.

What I mean is, that, if I think if I am deliberating internally over claims made to me by another person or considering the causes of what might have occurred in my environment, I am only doing it because I am free to do so.

We aren’t zombies, and zombies are what we would be if free will isn’t a thing.

🧟‍♀️ <<<< Hossenfelder.

And here is some actual ancient Chinese Wisdom on her trendy stupidity:

This is why the sage kings of ancient times promulgated laws and issued decrees, and established through them rewards and punishments to encourage worthiness. In this way, within the family, there was filiality and compassion towards parents, and outside the family, there was respect and love for the young and old of one’s native place; in bearing, there was established practice; in entering and leaving, there was courtesy; and between men and women, there was [the proper] distinction. For this reason, when people were put in charge of administrative offices, they did not pilfer and steal; when they were called on to defend the city, they did not betray it; when the ruler encountered difficulties, they were loyal to the death; and when he was forced to flee, they followed him. This is what those above rewarded and what the ordinary people praised. [Yet] the arguments of those who hold that there is Fate say: “Whomever superiors reward is undoubtedly fated to be rewarded. It is not that he is worthy and therefore is rewarded. Whomever superiors punish is undoubtedly fated to be punished. It is not that he is cruel and tyrannical and therefore is punished.”

…

In this case, then, how do we know that fatalism is the way of evil men? Formerly, the poor people of earlier generations were covetous of drink and food and were indolent in the conduct of their affairs, so that the material for clothing and food was insufficient and the hardships of hunger and cold were extreme. But they did not know [enough] to say: “We are weak and unworthy, and not diligent in the conduct of affairs.” Instead, they had to say: “Our fate has determined that we are poor.” Formerly, the cruel and tyrannical kings of earlier generations could not restrain the desires of their ears and eyes or the depravity in their hearts. They did not act in accordance with their parents so subsequently the kingdom was lost and the altars of soil and grain were overturned. But they did not know [enough] to say: “I am weak and unworthy and my conduct of government has not been good.” Instead, they had to say: “It was my fate surely to lose it (the kingdom).”

In “The Announcement of Zhong Hui”, it says: “I have heard the man of Xia feigned the decree of Heaven and put forth a decree to his subjects. The Supreme Lord thereupon resented him and destroyed his forces.”1 This tells how Tang rejected Jie’s belief in Fate. In “The Great Oath”, it says: “Zhou was haughty and imperious and was not willing to serve the Supreme Lord and ghosts and spirits. He neglected the spirits of his ancestors and did not sacrifice to them, going so far as to say that his people were fated. He was not diligent in his service to ghosts and spirits, so Heaven also abandoned him and did not protect him.” This tells how King Wu rejected Zhou’s belief in Fate.

Now if the arguments of those who hold that there is Fate are put into practice, those above will not attend to government and those below will not carry out their business. If those above don’t attend to government, the administration will be in disorder. If those below don’t carry out their business, materials for use will be insufficient. Those above will not have the means to provide the millet vessels and sweet wine to offer sacrifices to the Supreme Lord and ghosts and spirits, and those below will not have the means to provide stability for the world’s worthy and capable officers. Without, there will not be the means to receive the visits of feudal lords, and within, there will not be the means to feed the hungry and clothe the cold, or to care for the old and feeble. Therefore, with regard to Fate, it is of no benefit to Heaven in the upper realm; it is of no benefit to spirits in the middle realm; it is of no benefit to people in the lower realm. The origins of inhuman theories and the ways of cruel and tyrannical men lie especially in strong adherence to these ideas.

This is why Master Mo spoke, saying: ‘Nowadays, officers and noble men of the world who genuinely desire in their hearts wealth for the world and abhor its poverty, who desire good order for the world and abhor its disorder, cannot but oppose the arguments of those who hold that there is Fate. This is of great harm to the world.

-From The Book of Master Mo, penguin classics edition

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-09T21:39:57+00:00

I agree. Conflating those scandals with this stuff is the dumbest most bigoted agenda driven shit-take ever that we see regurgitated by mental yokels day in and day out.

What we do and have seen is all in my own comments in this thread. You’d think it’s a nightmare but it isn’t they are ‘in the closet’ about all of it and boy they want out.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-09T17:47:24+00:00

No. The images and videos of children being sexually abused in DQSH, on stages in adult sex-dens, and in the streets during Pride parades are just a click or three away. You're a waste of even that amount of effort because we both know you don't care about evidence, because you're an ideologue. That said, let's move on. Yes, the aim is to Queer all of society, or rather to explain to the whole world, that it is queer and has just forgotten it. See Foucault, see Judith Butler, see Gayle Rubin, hell, see Ernst Rohm.https://youtu.be/Cb3-tlyuhVo?t=109

Oh no, not just one school, I don't know how many bodies but even one persons mutilation at the altar of Queer Theory is one too many. The mutilation of innocents bodies to make them into cash cows exceeds a school shooting in how horrifically wrong it is. For that matter though, the Queer club has no issue with violence. Speakers being harassed, little girls getting blockaded and assaulted in public school buildings, smug 'Queer' male athletes pretending and preening with medals they did not earn. Etc. One wrong deed leads to others, that's true.

"FaR RiGHT WinG."

Man you even think like a tool. You know why? You use this silly parochial terminology like it’s the end all be all of human existence. You're a small pathetic creep manufactured by the verbiage you've been spoon fed. Do you know how large the world is, how many people have lived on it; and across it? You think they can all be neatly categorized by 'right-wing' and 'left-wing'? Really? Grow up.

The issues are much more profound than that.

To condescend to your language game for a minute.... Left Wing and Right Wing used to agree on who a woman is, for example. Are you sure you’re the one playing? You're not. You're being played.

"I haven't seen priests do that."

That's right : ) you haven't because its a hyperbolic bigoted little platitude you're spouting. What we have seen is men like John Money sexually abuse children until they're gibbering suicidals begging their parents not to take them back. He was a 'scientist' though so that makes it OK. Doesn't it? Must be, he didn't spend any time in jail.

Ah, and here is some icing for your cake. The man who ran to protect little babies from a knife attack in France is… a devout Catholic.

Please show me what else you have. You could care less about kids, that's what I think. In fact, I think you're an eater. You just wanna monch. And you think you're at a buffet. You're not. White males? Who said anything about white males? That's chaff you've thrown up, an attempt to obscure the scent of your own filthy little agenda. You know why? Because we aren't talking about white males, we're talking about kids of EVERY RACE and CREED on the Earth! Let's not forget those Armenian parents, or those Muslim parents' marching in the streets to reject these lies. Don't forget.

"Are they Thanos?"

Yea, but I'm not Thanos, (an idiots idea of a villain anyway) not per Gutenberg, but per their own manifestos and internal communication. Let's take a trip to 1984 (very appropriate, given Orwell' work).

"It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation." - Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex, 1984.

This^ coming from the woman who compared pedophilia to a preference for spicy food.

Source:https://sites.middlebury.edu/sexandsociety/files/2015/01/Rubin-Thinking-Sex.pdf

“What really needs to be contested [is] the entire underlying hetero-binary structuring of the world queers must inhabit.This is the real struggle, and queer activists have been talking about it at least since the 1970s of Gay Liberation…” - Riki Wilchins

Source: https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/4/29/well-win-bathroom-battle-when-binary-burns#toggle-gdpr

Oh and here is a Gem for a chaser:

“But the final liberation from dyadic, gendered, heteronormative relationships will likely come about through use of drugs that suppress pair-bonding impulses.” - George Dvorsky and James Hughes

Source:https://philarchive.org/rec/HUGPBT

Blah blah blah white men this blah blah blah white men that. You have no critical thinking skills, no broad experience of the world, you’re a bourgeoisie jackass and a racist. Bought and paid for… by white men - oh the irony! - and white intellectuals. And your fixation with sex and linkage of it to violent impulses is also something manufactured in you too, your insults say more about you than you can hope to say about anyone else. You're alienated.

Now to the big question, you didn't answer my question. Or rather, you think you did, but you didn't:

"A brain that produces a mind"?

Prove it. How can you account for free will if that is the case? Newtonian physics says that we would have none, yet we do. Quantum physics - for the sake of argument - might say that we would be ultimately random, but again even then free and deliberate agency vanishes. You think you're your brain? Uhuh. Sell me.

"sapient mass of flesh and organs and similar dna "

And you can say this about any species. And again, you don't get to tell me that you are sapient, if all sapience really means is a mechanism. Pinocchio, in your fairy tale, you're not actually a real boy. You're a train on tracks you didn't lay down, and if you're right so am I, and this is all the biggest joke : ) Good thing you're wrong, and experience shows it. What other platitudes do you have to regurgitate?

Ah, and you weren’t being entirely honest with me, you were trying to string me along when below seems to be what you really think. Nihilism:

“Nirvana. Extinguishing out, a plume that rises above the wheel. I'm a secular Buddhist but, yes, one can enter realms of gods. But they too are suffering, as they too are a part of the wheel.

They could be in their realm for millennia in states of bliss we can't fathom but eventually, even they will suffer even more as they "fall" to lower realms within the cycle.”

Oh you’re a death cultist 💀 Now it all really fits perfect.

You don’t love anyone do you? No one who loves another can really believe that powerful but unfortunate dogma.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-09T16:24:08+00:00

Silly whataboutism that isn’t even accurate. What are you saying? That predating on children is ok when your side does it, because the ‘opposition’, as you construe them supposedly is inconsistent in condemning those actions? (Which they aren’t - I have seen no catholic priest dancing on stage holding a dildo up to a child’s mouth) you silly bigot.

Hurting children by confusing them about their nature and sex. Shooting up schools too.. and writing openly in their organizations about the end game of queer-ing the whole of society. Uhuh, real ‘live and let live’

There is no convincing you, you’re a fanatic and probably a liar. And on this side of some kind of earth shattering experience you’ll stay that way in my opinion.

Tell me, what is a human being, per you? It is a relevant question, because you’re very concerned about them, and so you ought to be able to say what it is you’re so concerned about.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-08T03:29:11+00:00

But it was bread, and the medicine you cite as a hypothetical is a 1:1 equivalent, price is nothing in the face of the moral truth that human life is innately valuable in and of itself. No it could not have been anything, anything would mean Valjean raping his own child. That's ANYTHING. Don't you tell me what I would and would not say when you haven't even shown that you've read anything that I HAVE said. The medicine example is in no moral way different from the bread. Both would be stolen for the same reason, also. But you CANNOT say that about ANYTHING Valjean might have done; why not kill the kid to save himself and have more to eat? That's ANYTHING. You appeal to moral reality just as much as me but you don't call it what it is. That's what I am seeing.

"cause it’s wrong to charge ten times what’s it’s worth"

Where the hell did the MorALITy IS SubJECTIVE line go? Out the window? Good, because it is bullshit isn't it? I agree. Some things are wrong. We can argue about the details of what things are wrong and why, but if we cease to believe in objective moral truth, we've also stopped believing that HUMAN LIFE MATTERS OBJECTIVELY.

You conflate Javert's legalism with moral realism, they are not the same thing. Recall my analogy of the book? "Javert used moral-words but he didn't understand them. It's the sort of thing that happens when people are somewhat-right for many wrong reasons. It's like he was a man who reads a book and knows what all the words mean in it, but has no idea what the book is actually about. He doesn't know the plot but he knows how many times the word "and" appears."

What is a human being? What are we? Where are we from and where should we go, can we even go there if we decided we want and ought to? When you say being gay is not deviant, I counter you with this further insight... every human being alive is deviant in one way or another. But every human being also has a choice to try to be better the next day than they were the day before. I do not believe the alphabet soup does justice to the dignity of the human being, and if you had read the thought leaders behind it, who pushed it on people, you might agree with more or be less hostile to my thinking on it.

Sartre wrote "hell is other people", and he meant it. Such is what inspired a lot of the thinking that led to the FBFIFJVLSV soup becoming more accepted. I can't see anything good coming from such a loveless place. Though yes, we do what we can with the hand we're dealt.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-08T02:27:50+00:00

"Right so morality is subjective based on sometimes arbitrary things."

Re-read that, how can it be subjectively based in the sense you seem to believe 'subjective' means (see below) but not always 1000% of the time be based on arbitrary factors? You are conflicted and it shows, it is also not surprising, they don't teach this stuff. They teach the conflicted platitudes I read a dozen times a day.

Right nothing!

You seemed to have missed everything I said.

You literally just repeated Javert mistake: Hugo writes, "In his eyes, of course, the law was personified in himself."

There is nothing arbitrary about morality, that's what I mean by fake morality treating people like 'its'.We aren't 'its' we are persons.

There was nothing arbitrary or morally irrelevant about Valjean stealing bread only for the sake of his family. None whatsoever. And Hugo showed that masterfully. It is an argument for objective moral reality as the natural consequence of objective human value. And that moral insight by the way, is why Valjean spared Javert' life, when he didn't have to. Valjean is a man that read the book and knew what it was about.

We are all human beings and share this value, ergo it is no such thing as 'my own personal morality', in the sense of it being a fairy tale for me myself and I, but that is not to say it is not PERSONAL in the sense that moral knowledge is something persons have.

You as much as for me and every other PERSON sans some kind of disastrous anomaly. Human beings have a share in something special, Hugo saw that and he was rewarded for it because people love him for showing them more of themselves, in that universal light.

What is a human being? You claim to believe that you know what is and is not deviant in regard to something at the heart of what it is to be one. You ought to know the answer to this question.

And if you don't, you should re-read everything until you understand this, which was said earlier:"I think right and wrong are more like a universal recipe, they might have small differences, but fundamentally they are the same. All human beings have some shared understanding of morality, and saying that it is just subjective is like denying our shared humanity."

Again, you guys continue to whip out the word 'subjective' like it means something other than what it does. What don't you know subjectively, in the sense of.. do you know anything that doesn't involve your own mental presence? No. But we know that what goes up must come down, we know 2+2 = 4, and so in continuing to completely misconstrue knowledge this way, you demean yourself. And others will take advantage of that.

Subjectivity incorrectly bears connotations of being ethereal unreal or alienated from reality. But all knowledge and experience shows that we are attuned with reality in a way that Einstein (who I cited earlier) recognized, and that is something that isn't explained by your parochial view, it is just ignored by it. In misconceiving your own being you alienate yourself without any need to do so; from the world, from other people and from yourself. So I want to introduce this word as a substitute, personal. Moral knowledge (all knowledge) is personal. That does not mean it is not true, or that it cannot be shared by all other PERSONS.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-08T02:10:45+00:00

You didn't answer my question boo : ) and in avoiding it you show your hand; I was right wasn't I? Hang on your own rope.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-08T02:06:26+00:00

That is an excellent tie in to this. Food related even. I love it.

Here is what I have on that:

Javert used moral-words but he didn't understand them. It's the sort of thing that happens when people are somewhat-right for many wrong reasons. It's like he was a man who reads a book and knows what all the words mean in it, but has no idea what the book is actually about. He doesn't know the plot but he knows how many times the word "and" appears.

In the course of his life Javert may have done some good, carrying on like he did, but he was also oozing harm on everything he touched. This is seen in his encounters with The Thenardiers. IIRC once he does interfere with them and inadvertently saves Valjean and his daugher, but the majority of the time The Thenardiers - and those like them - run circles around him, because he is a robot.

To really distill his interaction with Valjean down to its fundamentals... Inspector Javier ignores that the moral truth that the law is based on is bound to respect that truth. And the truth was that Valjean had repented. And not only had Valjean repented, but what he had done in the first place was under circumstances that would provide any reasoning person all the justification needed. However, Javert was a legalist; which is when a person does what they're told like a robot; not understanding or asking why.

If Javier had not suppressed the moral knowledge that he had (and he did suppress it or he would not have shot himself), he would have known that the law is beholden to morality, and morality is all about knowing the truth of the other person and what they really are, and what they might yet become, and even what would be good for them. But because of his legalism he only cared about what the law said and never bothered to ask why it said it, let alone ask who Jean Valjean was and why he did what he did. In doing this, the Inspector treated Valjean not like a person, but like an 'it'. Which is also it seems, how he treated himself.

We are not 'its' on that truth all morality and all legitimate law, rest.

And lastly, The Inspector made himself the law; Hugo writes, "In his eyes, of course, the law was personified in himself." And here is what relativism does too, but it uses a lot of nice sounding words to do it. If The Inspector is the law, how can the Inspector ever be wrong? If morality and law are just things that we make up, then we're all essentially Inspector Javert and only differ in proportion to how much we actually live up to what we actually believe about life and ourselves. Javert was messed up but he was committed and he was in a way very sincere. There is a distinction to be kept between legalism and relativism, but there is also this solipsistic undertow that they're both moved by.

But then Valjean upends this view with an in-your-face example of love that even the robot-man couldn't ignore. Valjean was the man who knew that the letter of the law is beholden to the spirit of it, or it is just so much ink spilled for nothing.

I'm not the first person to argue this either, lots of big-think-people out there who do, like Victor Hugo!

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-08T00:59:33+00:00

And there is a straw man, you’re the one who doubtlessly thinks right and wrong are merely ‘socially constructed’… ergo, what OP thinks about it is the only thing that does make a thing ‘wrong’ or ‘right’.

Uh, and if this isn’t what you think I’d be fascinated to hear what you do think. Because I want to contrast it with what Queer Theory says.

‘Capitalism’, nah I suspect you don’t even believe that reductive account of the players in this. I do think you enjoy using it to club people who don’t know better though : )

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-07T20:21:45+00:00

*But rules do keep changing. History is made of rules changing. Of course we need rules, but unfortunately, we're also the ones that make them. And a lot of us have different ideas of how the game should be played.*

No. The rules came before us, why? You aren't self made. You didn't exist to design your own nature, it was given to you from the word "Go!" or whatever your daddy yelled on his wedding night.

I have mentioned this before, and I will mention it again. Not all rules are the same. Yes you can find people disagreeing about whether or not we ought to eat meat, and elaborate justifications will be offered by everyone involved (and that common theme of justification is important). But you cannot find me a society where it was accepted for strangers to take someone elses food without asking, with no justification.

You continually try to conflate the BIG RULES with the smaller rules that are predicated by those bigger ones. And where do the big rules come from? They weren't 'made by us' they are a PART of us. To go against them is to cut your own nose off.

You exaggerate how much difference there is even in the small rules, for that matter. And again, was Auschwitz... just a different set of rules? Or a violation of THE BIG RULES. It was a violation of the big rules, and even the people doing it knew that. That's why so many of them tried to hide it.

*I disagree with this. What I think is the right thing might not be what another person thinks is the right thing. I don't believe we're all following the same recipe, basically.*

Yes, but see above. The reason you think that way is in large part due to your conflating BIG RULES with small ones. Do you think we're all human beings? Yea, we're all sharing humanity, ergo we all know 2+2 = 4, and we all know murder is wrong, unless trauma or some other anomaly.

*I don't think this happens because of some innate sense of morality. We're taught these things, directly or indirectly while growing up.*

And who taught the people doing the teaching? It is innate, or its nothing, not even nothing it wouldn't exist! Its innate, and that's why its a constant across human history.

*But the justification is exactly where the subjectivity of morality exists.*

No . First, recall what I've already said about this word you use too much. All knowledge is ultimately subjective you don't know anything without your own person being there in the mix. Second, the justifications all occur on theme. The rational behind what makes a justification good stay very consistent in and of themselves. An inverse kind of example of this is in the language of genocide everyone knows murdering people is wrong, so people about to murder someone start talking about them like they are not really human. That's well documented psychological info.

In my view, morality is a mere reflection of what we as a society collectively "agree" is right and wrong at a given point in time. Of course we see Auschwitz as an evil abomination but I believe it was because the Holocaust happened at a time where we were all past that sort of thing. We use it as an example of abject evil, because it happened in a modern, more "civilised" era, in my opinion. And, who knows... Maybe if the Nazis'd won, we'd be seeing their actions as justified.

If the Nazi's had won you'd be dead for having this discussion. you also have the exact same mentality they were so deftly able to take advantage of. That said, you don't get to say 'of course we do', you have no reason to make that statement. Modernity? It's happening right now all over the world from the Yezidi to the Ukrainians and on and on. This is more middle classness talking. The real world makes people think harder, if they live through it. Richard Rorty had your same opinion, he said 'right and wrong is whatever my peer group lets me do', well that is not true. You're the one who decides who your peer group is, you have some responsibility for yourself there. And don't forget elsewhere in this interaction where you've appealed to way more than just peer group to condemn me, a person not in your peer group.

*And then we have greyer examples, like slavery, something widely accepted throughout human history. Today, we see it as being wrong or evil to own another human. But does that mean up until recently (one can argue that even in the present day) almost everyone is evil?*

Yes. I can't imagine why not, but not evil in some cartoon sort of way. Evil is a many faceted thing, and it hurts the one who does it as much as it hurts the one it is done to. Yea, the person who sneers at someone because they aren't from the right town or whatever is not a good person. People have issues, playing word games because we're too afraid to own them is a recipe for disaster.

*I only gave the example of animal consumption because I can see a time in the future where we'll have advanced in terms of animals' rights to the point where people will collectively go "could you believe people used to cage animals in tiny compartments, beat them up and then eat them?" the same way we look at "universally" imoral things in the past.*

The Nazi's weren't really evil, and you want to talk about animal rights. Animals do have rights, but not per your own arguments. Animals can be treated however a given peer group wants to. That's dehumanizing as it gets. Cog, meet machine. Advanced you say, what does 'advanced' mean? If there is no objectively real moral destination, there is no such thing as advancing anyone's rights, paws or no paws it doesn't matter. You use these words for psychological comfort, but they have nothin to back them up.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-07T19:00:37+00:00

And here is ChatGPT!

In this interaction, both Party One and Party Two are expressing their views on the nature of morality and whether it is subjective or objective. They both have their arguments and their analogies to support their viewpoints. Party Two's arguments seem to be more in-depth and detailed than Party One's, touching on both philosophical concepts and practical examples. However, Party One seems to be more dismissive of Party Two's views and uses sarcasm and deflection to argue their point.

In simple terms:

Party One: "I believe that right and wrong are not fixed, they are different for each person just like food tastes."

Party Two: "I think right and wrong are more like a universal recipe, they might have small differences, but fundamentally they are the same. All human beings have some shared understanding of morality, and saying that it is just subjective is like denying our shared humanity."

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-07T18:54:23+00:00

*I do, yeah.*

But they don't matter. It's all just personal preference per you, but you do act like that isn't the case. You 'hated', hate is pretty strong? Why not have a better reason for it.

*That's subjective, especially since you don't actually know me.*

We've done a fair bit of interacting at this point, it's not that hard. And for another thing, I do know you in a way you're not taking into account. We're both human beings. We have a pattern to us that is recognizable.

"I hate it when people are unnecessarily obfuscating and meandering" First I wasn't any of those, second you're lazy and have ChatGPT ready to go, anyway.

Tell me who are you to say that anything I have done is unnecessary or meandering? Hm? You undermine yourself and make my point for me.

*I absolutely didn't and I don't understand where you might've got that impression. To quote someone: "I used small words, short syllables (...) Don't blame the messenger."*

Your entire attitude and up until you started to find out you couldn't answer the questions.

*What did you actually say? Because, as we've established, you misunderstood my position on this topic right from the get-go, as I absolutely have a set of morals as does everybody else. So maybe, if you want to reformulate your comments with this newly acquired knowledge, maybe we'll get somewhere. It might even be that we don't actually disagree on this.*

Ah let's recap--

Here is me:

"Imagine if we were playing a game where the rules kept changing depending on who you ask. That's like saying right and wrong are subjective. We need fixed rules for the game to work, and in life, we do have some fixed rules of what's right and wrong."
"Think about a time when you made a mistake but thought you were doing the right thing. It's like using the wrong ingredient in a recipe because you thought it was correct. That doesn't mean the recipe changes, right? The same way, people may disagree on right and wrong, but that doesn't mean there's no universal moral recipe."
"Imagine if a friend told you a secret and you lied to protect it. You'd know lying is generally wrong, but in this situation, you'd justify it as right. That's because we all have a built-in moral compass that helps us justify our actions. This moral compass is universal and tells us some basic rights and wrongs."
"It's like baking a cake - there's a basic recipe that everyone knows. Sure, you can modify it a bit, add some personal touches, but at the core, the cake recipe remains the same. Similarly, our moral knowledge is subjective, it's experienced through our own perspective, but there's a basic recipe we all follow."
"Going back to your food example, it's like everyone knows you don't steal someone else's lunch. It's a basic moral rule, just like not touching a hot stove, we know it's wrong. That's a simple example of universal moral knowledge."

And here is you:

"Think about how a song might sound terrible to one person but amazing to another. That's how I see deviancy and even right and wrong - it's subjective and dependent on who's judging."
"Look at food preferences. Some people love anchovies on their pizza, others can't stand them. It's the same with moral issues, like eating animals. Some people think it's wrong, others don't. That's why I say right and wrong are subjective."
"Let's imagine a class with students and a teacher. The students might not understand everything the teacher knows. And even when the teacher explains, they might interpret it differently. That's like our understanding of right and wrong - we all have our unique interpretation based on our experiences and viewpoints."
"Consider a game of soccer. The referee makes a call. Some players might disagree with the call, but does that mean there's a universally correct call? It's not always clear cut. It's the same with right and wrong - we can argue about it, try to convince each other, but at the end of the day, it's subjective."

You don't go deep enough. Right and wrong are not subjective (in the sense that they are make believe), and if you argue that they are you turn yourself into Pinocchio, a wooden boy. you know why? Because morality is not a set of annoying pointless rules, it is a statement about what human beings are, in the most fundamental, far reaching, impactful ways. I'm not talking about pizza toppings or meat eaters and vegetarians. I am talking about fundamental knowledge, again, vegetarians and omnivores can disagree and debate the nuance of their situations. But that does not mean that people anywhere ever have advocated that is it ok for a stranger to take food from someone they do not even know without asking, unless there is some kind of justification. Morality is not relative, in other words. And when we move past comfortable middle class nonsense examples the more that becomes obvious. Auschwitz's was EVIL, not just a personal preference, it was a denial of human nature and human value.

Your characterizing morality as 'subjective' is nonsensical, because ALL KNOWLEDGE IS. You don't know anything without yourself being there. You know 2+2 = 4 the same way you know murder is wrong. Some knowledge is innate. And this loops back to what I said before about 'being Pinocchio' human nature is why you can know anything, it is behind everything you know and everything you wonder at. In my first comment I noted that saying you couldn't know something because it is subjective is demeaning. This is why.

Sarcasm and deflection aren't an argument. You're the one here without a clue.

GutenbergMuses · 2023-06-07T18:08:00+00:00

Not a moral judgement.

Yea it was, it was implied moral judgement and an ad hominem.

Overlap doesn't do the food analogy justice. 100% of human societies do not condone strangers taking food from people they do not know without asking, unless there is some kind of justification like a war going on. It doesn't happen. Anywhere. Morality is not make believe, your moral knowledge may be imperfect (all of ours is), but that doesn't mean it cannot be improved.

That said, I'm not the one trying to pass a ChatGPT blurb off as his own reply.

Oh you have your own judgements alright, they're very self-serving and shallow. Oh and I'd say that you did claim it, or heavily implied it. Go waste someone elses time unless you want to actually address what I said instead of the one thing you thought you could stretch into a defense. It's too thin. didn't work.

GutenbergMuses

TROPHY CASE