Damn straight, been sick of his **** bringing down the forum.

Just saw this RYM review for Twiztid's Hearbroken & Homicidaland it's my favorite thing.

Good album but also has what is probably the worst song they ever made.



Edit: But this song is one of their best.

If that's not the worst song they ever made then they deserve an ass whupping. That Doors cover from Freek Show still takes the cake afaic. So ass whupping.

I actually like that Doors cover.

An ass whupping for you too.

For anyone who doesn't know, this is the song I think Lucem deserves to get his ass kicked for liking.

I'll fight people for my 90s hot topic rendition of a Doors song.

their worst song is god awful

Their best song is just bad.

You just don't understand high art.

That's true.

Alright I'll fight for Twiztid's best song.

Apple? (which I don't think is their best)

I'm not willing to fight for whichever is their best song.

I love this for 3 reasons.

1) I like watching Jordan Peterson get talked into a corner and the ridiculous, yet creative, lengths he goes to defend, or avoid defending, nonsensical stances. I often times don't know if he truly believes the stance (since he'll talk himself into circle to avoid having to answer that) and tries to use logic to back claims he just wants to believe or if he's just trying to make more conservative ideas seem logical to appeal to the more conservative fan base that has driven him into stardom. Either way he's clearly upset and intimidated the way he's shaking in it.

2) Matt completely reflects my beliefs on free will.

3) Matt believes that morality is a selfish trait which kind of makes me feel validated in my belief that empathy and compassion are narcissistic traits because we only feel empathy and compassion towards things that remind us of ourselves in someway. I'm an irrationally insecure man, I like feeling validated.

It's not selfish. That's a misnomer. Unless you define your "self" by the collective interests of your individual genes.

Selfish as in I wouldn't want this to happen to me so I won't do it to others.

Self-preservation is more appropriate for what you're describing than selfishness.

Why?

Selfish is meant to describe disregarding others for yourself. Compassion and empathy fly in the face of that, even when it's rooted in self-preservation.

Not if empathy is as I described.

It's more like I have no right to bitch about it if I'm doing it as well. If I set the precedent then hopefully others will be inspired and follow it. It's collectively in everybody's self interest. I know that it won't always pan out, but it definitely won't pan out if nobody is doing it. So I should do it.

And that's also not the biological reason for morality.

Morality is something that exists on a societal level for the maintenance of said society. It was driven genetically mostly by kin selection and reciprocity, in small tribes. Modern civilization seizes on the same basic instincts though it doesn't match up with genetic incentives. That's because modern civilization is a very recent outlier.

If you want to ignore other animals that have shown a sense of morality because you think human's are special, okay.

I think you really need to define what you personally mean by morality too.

Some people tend to think morality is a code set by social standards when I just think what we be believe to be moral tends to be influenced by social standards.

However I believe morality to be about preventing the most harm and suffering as possible and to cause the opposite. Which differs from human to human so often times what societies try to push as 'morality' is actually immoral.

I assumed we were talking about humans. How do you distinguish morality from normal behavior?

Why do you think morality isn't normal behavior?

ah, I see. That's not how we (or any other species) are wired. That's basically just utilitarian morality, which is a relatively recent human invention in philosophy which doesn't reflect how we actually seem to be wired to act.

I don't think you actually know that. I don't think anybody actually knows that.

I'm basing it on observable behavior. If you want to retreat into solipsism then you are just avoiding reality.

I think the way morality has evolved completely reflects my theory on empathy. We used to be more moral towards our tribe or our family because it's easier to see our selves in them. But as awareness and knowledge expands through our ability to self analyze, we start seeing our selves in other groups that aren't superficially or immediately connected to our own identity.

You're basing it on assumptions derived from observable behavior with no real proof to the claim.

Saying that I'm retreating into solipsism is a huge strawman and it made me have to read. Oh, ****, I'm already reading.

I don't think you are taking into account how evolution actually works. How would that work, genetically?

We evolved in the tribal context based on kin selection and reciprocity because
1) kin selection - your close relatives share your genes
2) the people in close proximity to you make for useful and reliable trading partners.

The selective pressures that selected for these traits made basic assumptions that are no longer true, but were true for the vast majority of human history

E.g. that your brother is always going to be genetically related to you. You can have an adopted brother and feel the same way about them. That's not cause you're more evolved. It's cause the forces that drove your evolution simply assumed brothers were related and, in the vast majority of cases, they were.

When I say evolved I don't mean in a genetic sense, I mean how our understanding of morality has developed. I don't think morality is genetic, I think it's a product of varying things that are genetic that I can't pin point because I'm not a neurologist. I think time has given us the ability to analyze ourselves and gain a better understanding of morality just like it has in many different things.

That's negative utilitarism, to be exact. I think that it is actually what most modern people's morals are based on (that's how it is for me anyway), but it's probably true that our natural instincts obey a different morality: one that's purely based on the successful survival of ourselves and our kin. However, I guess that nurture has wired us to try to act utilitarian.
By the way, it's funny how much human morals change throughout history

it arises as a function of human society (i.e. the tribe) and is based largely on the genetic mechanisms I spoke of.

The extent to which it is variable is the extent to which different human societies sieze in the same instincts to enforce different rules.

There is a lot of evidence for it. In fact, if you believe in evolution, it's really hard to explain how some mechanism for regulating human behavior which always serves the good of a given society and is present in every human society on Earth would not have some basic evolutionary explanation. It's just yet another arena where science makes is uncomfortable when it hits too close to home.

what serves society first and foremost is having a common moral framework by which you can regulate the members of said society

Society A and society B might have different specific morals, but the purpose those morals serve are much more identical.

E.g. I remember a study from years back about how they determined that certain neural activity resembled someone pondering a moral question vs a strictly logical question.

And they asked a group of people about stoning a woman for adultery, some of whom were Western and some of whom were middle Eastern. The people answered the question predictably, of course. The striking thing was that in both the Western and middle Eastern patients, the same neural patterns manifested. The Westerners were disgusted at the murder a woman, the middle easterners week disgusted at her betrayal of her husband. Both were following the same instincts, though informed by different cultures so they came to very different conclusions.