EclecticIdealist

You are presupposing (assuming, or accepting as a pre-established truth) that morals must be rationally consistent and universally applicable to all people. Stefan believes he has proven this to be the case with UPB; however, all he has done is established a rationally consistent moral theory which is mostly useless. The only things it condemns as immoral are those actions which are the imposition of force upon another person which cannot be "reasonably justified" by all people under all circumstances. It cannot even condemn lying, marital infidelity, or the exploitation of the weaknesses of others as categorically immoral, nor can it definitively claim any performance action is actually moral. only claims that "Negative Performances", i.e. not doing something immoral are moral.

So, what you're saying is, if before you can present your argument, you’re asked to first present his argument (something you don't have years of practice doing over the phone off the top of your head, the way he does), but perhaps that wasn't intentional manipulation taken from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", right? And you are not allowed to cut off or atempt to talk over Stefan, even though he's allowed to and often does this to you, right? (If you try to, the call ends) You are also not allowed to refer to any argument that Stefan makes as his argument, right? Or refer to any unique definition that he uses that differs from the commonly accepted definition as his definition, or the call ends, right? Even if that is precisely what you called in to talk about. But that's not manipulation either. And when Stefan goes on to disparage the caller's ability to make a case for his position under such one-sided, unequal circumstances, that's not manipulation after the fact either, right? Pay very close attention next time and you'll start to notice all the subtle (and not so subtle) rhetorical tricks he uses to manipulate and control the discussion. Then, you may start to notice where he and others use them elsewhere.

You stated that she has a problem with some of the things that Stefan has said has made her mad. Have you talked about those things and why she holds the position she does? Have you had her make an argument for her position and support it with facts? Have you done the same with the arguments that you have heard Stefan and his guests make? Are you open to the possibility that Stefan is wrong about some of the positions he takes and you are willing to listen to an opposing point of view that specifically addresses those claims? How critical are you, have you been, are you willing to be of the arguments and positions which Stefan makes? Is it possible that Stefan has callers that are logical and consistent, but he is less than amiable towards because they disagree with his position and he manipulates the conversation to prevent them from making their argument in a rational and consistent manner by demanding they accept his unwarranted premises which they are calling in to challenge? Have you been able to articulate clearly to her why you hold the positions you do, and has she been able to do the same? If you can communicate on these issues, you may find you can disagree agreeably with one another. On the other hand, if you or she or both lack certain virtues the other requires in a partner, the relationship will be doomed unless growth occurs and those virtues are adopted and developed.

“Words are the source of misunderstanding.” — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” — Confucious If we’re to have a discussion about ethics and morals, I believe it to be important to have a clear definition for the terms being used. Too often, people use words with multiple meanings, or even invent new meanings for words. Sometimes, they conflate the meaning of words or attempt to use different words interchangeably. Usually, it is simply the result of imprecise or sloppy thinking, but sometimes, it is done deliberately by sophists seeking to use the semblance or reason and logic to justify a non-rational or sometimes an irrational position. Very occasionally it is done to provide greater clarity, and in such cases, the word is usually carefully and explicitly defined. There are three types of behavior. The first type of behavior is autonomic or automatic behavior which is non-conscious and reactive. It is the direct response to specific types of stimulus to our nervous system. An example of such behavior is the unconscious response to pain (usually withdrawing or pulling away from the stimulus). The next type of behavior is volitionally created, but unconscious or subconscious. It is the result of conscious decisions or semi-conscious decisions repeated over time until the behavior is habitual or an unconscious or subconscious response to specific stimuli. Examples of such behavior include the collection of unconscious behaviors enabling a person to walk, ride a bike, drive a car, touch-type, play the piano or musical instrument, etc. The third and last type of behavior is deliberate, volitional behavior. Examples of this include conscious, deliberate decision making and the specific, intentional decisions and actions involved in creating unconscious, habitual behavior. Volitional behavior is behavior which is voluntarily chosen. It is contrasted by non-volitional behavior, which is behavior in which there is no voluntary choice. Most volitional behavior ranges entirely volitional to almost entirely compulsory. Entirely compulsory behavior is non-volitional, i.e., the behavior is not deliberately controlled in the moment, but may be the response of habitual, unconscious, or autonomic behavior to stimuli. Mostly compulsory behavior is volitional behavior under duress. Such duress may include the threat of a loss of one’s Volitional behavior is also of two kinds, optional, and obligatory. Volitional behavior which is optional involves decisions making between two or more options for which there is no sentimental judgment. A sentimental judgement includes judgments of “desirable, undesirable, and abhorrent”, and “Good, Neither Good nor Bad, i.e. Neutral, and Bad”. Such sentiments may also exist on a gradient, e.g. most desirable, more desirable, desirable, less desirable, least desirable”. Obligatory volitional behavior also has two kinds: subjective which is born from individual sentiment, or objective which is causally tied: i.e., “to get this, one must do that”. It ought to be abundantly clear to any rationally thinking individual that all obligatory volitional behavior that is born of sentiment is subjective, and all obligatory volitional behavior that is descriptive of causal relationships is objective. Ethical prescriptions and proscriptions are imperatives which are inherently subjective. Causal descriptions are declarative or descriptive and inherently objective. Ethical imperatives are rational if the imperatives or rules are rationally causally related to the ideals which they purport to support or maintain. They are irrational if they do not. That which is objective is evaluated by reason or observation and rational analysis. That which is subjective is evaluated by non-rational sentiment and rational analysis of causal relationships with sentimentally desired ideals or values. Rational Ethics, properly understood, are ethical imperatives or prescriptive of proscriptive behavior which are objectively in an accurate or true causal relationship to one’s subjectively chosen ideals or values. Morals are the Ethics which are imposed by the moral leaders of society upon its members. In most societies, morals are mostly democratically or collectively determined. Professional associations such as Bar Associations, Medical Professional Associations, Accounting Associations have ethical standards which are voluntarily chosen or agreed upon and adhered to by its members. These are typically referred to as ethics, but might just as well be regarded as morals, since membership in these associations and adherence to these ethical standards is typically necessary in order to find employment in such fields. Religions promulgate the morals of society, but most of such morals are typically attributed to divine fiat or dictate, especially in the Abrahamic traditions. If you’re looking for a moral compass, you’re looking for an external source or sources to tell you what you should esteem or value, what Ideals you should hold to, rather than looking to your own sentiments. In order to determine what ethical standards of behavior you should adhere to, you should look at what it is you desire. You should evaluate your ideals and values. From there, you should work backwards and determine those actions and behaviors which are required to achieve or fulfill those ideals and values. When it comes to morals, you should at the very least determine what actions and behaviors you are obligated by society to adhere to in order to maximize your liberty and ability (freedom) to achieve your individual or personal ideals and values. A sociopath is typically identified as a person who lacks a natural sense of empathy with others as a result of trauma (typically early childhood trauma), damaging those areas of the brain that under normal circumstances develop naturally in childhood. A psychopath is typically identified as a person who lacks a natural sense of empathy with others as a result of congenital abnormalities in the brain. Nevertheless, sociopathy can be “learned” or “conditioned” through desensitization to feelings of empathy. This process is typical among those without adverse childhood experiences who nevertheless go on to become serial rapists and murderers, often as a result of habitual viewing of violent pornography depicting scenes of rape and torture, etc. However, just as habituation can result in desensitization of the natural empathy a non-psychopath may begin with, there is some evidence to suggest that habituation can also help to train a sense of empathy in those who have experience significant adverse childhood experiences. One of the ways that one can train their natural sense of empathy is by deliberately and habitually imagining situations from another person’s point of view and how those situations might make them feel. Another way to help train a natural sense of empathy is to meditate and seek to deliberately experience emotions, especially emotions such as anger, hate, fear, grief, loneliness, relief, peace, hope, gratitude, joy, and love. Listening to various pieces of music in various genres can help to spur various emotions, as well as watching various videos. This is perhaps the most challenging thing for people who are emotionally “shut down” or otherwise “disabled”, as it would be akin to teaching someone who is tone deaf to properly hear, or someone who grew up speaking Japanese to distinguish between the r and l sounds in English. The brain can be retrained in much the same way muscles can be retrained. It can take weeks, months, even years of concentrated and concerted effort to correct damage which occurred early in life, but it is usually possible, if one desires to do so. I hope this helps.

In the end, it doesn't matter. If you have no control, you can't change things to obtain control, you can't even choose to hope that things will change. You either will or you won't according to the fte determinism has in store. If you do, you always do, it's simply a matter of degree... how much freedom or liberty you have and the power or ability to act within that liberty. You can seek to maximize your power and liberty, but whether such was your free-will choice, or simply the culmination of a series of events that led you inexorably to your own conversation with the Merovingian in his restaurant and "The Architect of The Matrix" is ultimately a definitively unanswerable question. I believe the whole of the physical universe of which each of us is a part is empirically deterministic, which suggests that we are too, and power and control are merely illusions which we are programmed by deterministic fate to respond to, including a programmed struggle against deterministic fate. We make our fate and it makes us.

My response was to his sarcastic comment to his strawman interpretation of the video. What aren't you understanding?

I quoted him in my post.

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. Just like if someone criticizes companies that exploit their employees, they're marxists.

People are really saying "White people don't exist?" The cries of "White Privilege" means nothing? Furthermore, the notion of "White Genocide" is ludicrous on its face. White people, as a "race", are not facing extinction any more than Black people, Brown people. If there is any "race of man" that is facing extinction in the World today, it is the North American Natives or "First Peoples". The reality is, there is no such thing as racial purity, all races have mixed to one degree or another and will continue to do so indefinitely. There are ethnic groups which may ultimately be assimilated into larger groups, losing their distinctiveness, but such has happened ever since the first humans left Africa millennia ago.

Jews.

I think most people who have a problem with the use of this word have such a problem because they are and simply don't like being correctly branded with the word.

I think it's completely shameful that the first thing that Steve Martin would notice about Carrie Fisher wasn't "her talent, her feminism, and her commentary on mental health" rather than her appealing "physicality". I also think it's completely shameful that the first thing he thinks when he sees a thanksgiving dinner is not the nobility of the magnificent animal that was so thoughtlessly raised in a pen and slaughtered for its flesh, or the noble farmers who have lost their jobs to the large corporate farms growing the food on the table, nor even the shame he should feel for his imminent gluttony, but rather, his first thoughts are likely how good the food smells and is likely to taste.