I'd have a better shot at destroying your comic collection methinks. :laughing:

I personally think you'd be better off just murdering your boss or something if you wanted to upset the status quo in your life.

It's a sentiment humankind has been moving toward for thousands of years. It's why we apply morality to literally every single aspect of our lives. It doesn't make sense and has no logical outcome but it's our imperative that we've taken upon ourselves and so we must and will see it through because the alternative is turning to pure pragmatism which I have already put on blast. It's why socialism exists as an ideal and I say it's as good as any utopian ideal we've come up with that is probably unworkable but nice sounding so if the rest of the human race decides it's a hill worth dying on then I'll go along with it happily. It's better than liberal moral death (your route), which is basically where we're headed at the moment.

Bat’s dick is so small it doesn’t count if he “****s” your girlfriend.

The point is that you can "do" whatever you want to someone else if you don't fear repercussions or consequences. But we all have those fears to some extent. It's the glue that holds society together despite massive variations on the spectrum of individual morality between people.

Does he even like black chicks?

It's not wanting to do those things that holds society together. If people wanted to do that **** they'd find a way. That's why capitalism exists. That's the terrible **** that people actually want to do to each other.

the choice isn't even between global socialism and ordinary geopolitics. You can choose to stop investing in military supremacy. The likely result will be another power supercedes us, not that we form a global communist collective.

If you completely reject any cricism based on pragmatism the likelihood of you coming up with an unworkable plan that fails and only makes things worse is exceedingly high.

lol

I’ve actually heard straight white guys seriously saying they wouldn’t **** a black woman.

Personally, I don’t believe that anyone on earth is that racist.

In my experience most suburban white men fall in that category

Pragmatism doesn't even work though. All societies eventually disintegrate due to the unforeseen consequences of their pragmatism (often because their pragmatism caused significant ill will in the people who brought about their downfall) and inside of those societies pragmatism causes stratification and misery. The way it always ends up working for dumb humans due to short term "best we can do" dip**** logic that ignores actual longterm planning is a cycle of growth and collapse.

Most suburban white men wont **** a black woman?

So, are we all doomed?

You'll be dead before global warming really destroys modern civilization but your kids might have a hard time. I figure I have an aces wild history of heart problems in my family that will take me out with how I live my life so if "we" is me and you then we're probably fine.

So FINE = DEAD?
Cool!

Have you watched 'Upgrade' yet? Looking forward to your review.

I mean.. what is the alternative that supposedly works better than pragmatism? To the extent that every society runs into problems based on pragmatic decisions, that's probably mostly true only because pragmatic decisions are necessary and thus ubiquitous in all civilizations. It's not like idealism has a much better success rate.

I think the entire social dynamic which leads to social norms and influence is largely derived from biology in some sense - the fact that the tribe was fundamental to our evolution puts an inherent premium on us to function within our tribe/society.

Part of cooperating and forming groups means adopting social norms within said group. That's where the inclination for social norms and influence ultimately derives from. Because a group is hardly going to be truly cooperative and cohesive without a basic set of common rules group members are expected to abide by.

I'm not making any statement about how any societal norm is "justified" based on the biological pressures that drive it. That's called the naturalistic fallacy.

But it is complicated. If you accept that cultures are different and each develop their own norms based in their own set of circumstances mixed with chance... Then condemning a culture for their norms is basically ethnocentrism. I.E. you're holding them to the standards of your own norms and thus declaring those norms in some way superior. Which in a way I think is fine. As long as you know that's what you're doing.

Subjective yet utterly dependant on being treated as if it's something approaching objective in order for it to function properly.

E.G. if you believe killing innocent children and eating them is wrong, you are basically going to view it as wrong even when it happens in a society where that's normal. You might view them as ignorant/misguided and thus not judge them as harshly as someone in your own culture, but you will still view the act itself as something best avoided.

Nah, I view morality as what harms or helps.

that's derived from a particular form of secular humanism/utilitarianism which is culturally prevalent in parts of the modern west. It's not an objective standard.. it's just the one you embrace

I feel the same way about stoning adulterers

Seriously though.. going back to your comments on things not being "justified" by biology. By using that term you are basically imposing your own (admittedly subjective and culturally provincial) form of morality on all human behavior. Merely by suggesting there is something to be "justified." Justified by what standard?

That isn't an answer to my question

Sure, if you say so.

@ elph

Basically you agree that judging a particular social norm relies on you imposing your own social norms on someone who doesn't necessarily share them.

And you also see morality as subjective.

So by what standard do you actually condemn any cultural or social norm? By your own particular subjective (culturally and socially influenced) set of norms that you happen to abide by? So saying they "aren't justified" is just saying they don't share your particular rule book.

Got em!

@elph
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...PolOUUZXYyQCvB

^lol..

Seems like a disproportionate response so it'd be harmful.

It also stems from the idea that criminals need to be punished rather than rehabilitated which is also harmful.

Realizing what's actually harmful kind of pushes social norms other wise we'd still own slaves because we'd have never questioned it.

Well you did specifically say biology doesn't make it justified. Which I agree.. that's a fallacy. But the only thing that does or doesn't make it justified is your own provincial form of morality. Which as you noted is just one among many subjective standards.

people still own slaves.

Again, that's because you've never lived in a society that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment so people who do it once are prone to do it again.

I think that kind of dictatorship would be harmful to the mental health of the people.

Smoking and not wearing a seat belt are your prerogative. Letting you maintain control of what you do with your body even if it's self harm is less harm than taking your freedom which would have a huge negative impact on your mental health.

to be fair you're not figuring in the suffering said policy would cause

Not in the United States.

So our morality is more evolved?

Yeah, where are you lost?

Even then, lets say we have a problem with drunk drivers. Is it more helpful to just kill them all or is it more helpful to provide better resources to prevent drunk driving?

Other than the 'Live Free or Die' state, seat belts are the law in the US. Too many people flying through windshields raises my health care costs and auto insurance rates.

**** those people's 'self harm' instincts.

In context of our history, yes, but we still tend to use ****ty justifications and cultural norms to hide us from uncomfortable truths about our own morality in this country.

No, you're just presenting a false dichotomy to prove a point. My third option is exactly why your point is bull****.