WalterKühl :bagpiper:
waltercool@pl.slash.clI'm atheist, but at least I know the asian guy with the highest IQ in the world is Christian
1
0
2
it's not uncommon in high IQ people to be very religious my guess is that they need some self-imposed nerf to not go insane
t. insane high-IQ person
2
1
4
0
1
2
Taylan (GNU+Feminism Cat)
taylan@feministwiki.orgI don't understand why some atheists insist on objective morality. It's obviously farcical, since there's no cosmic entity dictating how you must behave, punishing you if you don't, and so on. Pol Pot died a peaceful death surrounded by loved ones.
A mistake some people seem to make is thinking that if there's no objective morality, that you then have no right to impose morals on others, and would therefore have no justification to punish immoral behavior; even heinous murderers. But that, in and on itself, would be a moral judgment. If there's no objective morality, you can't tell me whether I can or cannot impose my subjective morals on others.
I can. And I will.
Jokes aside, I can simply "impose my morals on others" by supporting a sensible legal system. Doing so neither requires belief in a god, nor is it precluded by disbelief in one. I simply want to do it. So I do.
3
0
2
3
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
Taylan (GNU+Feminism Cat)
taylan@feministwiki.orgWe all know what you look like IRL Sally. Good luck trying to lift the axe.
1
1
1
1
0
0
@sally @taylan @dagda @snacks @waltercool high yield thermonuclear false nvke
1
0
1
Taylan (GNU+Feminism Cat)
taylan@feministwiki.orgCmon, obviously both of you look exactly like that.
Of course, you could always prove me wrong by posting a photo of yourself.
1
0
0
@taylan @sally @dagda @snacks @waltercool both of us separate can crush 10 of you combined, taylan
1
0
1
@taylan @sally @dagda @snacks @waltercool youd shit your pants if jimmy came at you based on the latest information on his fitness
0
0
1
I think it's easier to frame rules that seem like enforcements of morality as rules of mutual agreement of safety. For example, saying 'I'm against murder because I am." which is still a spooked argument, because you're implying there's some importance to life, which there isn't really.
Instead, it's probably better to argue that it's good to have a society wide peace treaty where we don't kill each other. It's expedient for most people, both weak and strong, especially in a world where weapons exist that practically negate inherent strength, that society as a whole treats murder as 'wrong', because it basically proves you're an untrustworthy psychopath. Prison, therefore, is a place where you go when you violate any of the safety rules set out in a society.
In this paradigm, it's actually pretty easy to argue for most rules whilst circumventing arguments of morality. I think it's silly to say, "There's no objective rules to the universe, but coincidently I'm going to support basically 99.99% of our current morality system by implying that's what I deeply desire." because that's pretty obviously spooked. Obviously, this paradigm also basically does that because, so I guess it's still quite spooked too. That being said, I do generally agree with most rules set out by modern society.
I'm sure I could word this better, but I can't be bothered.
1
0
2
without scarcity or wide trauma people generally follow da rules anyways, taylans institutions of muh legal system would certainly fail if everyone just came out of a war with no new sovereign to put state power into enforcing rules or there was objective scarcity of essential goods to live. This is what lenin said that without scarcity you wouldn't need to enforce property rights, without fear you would have cooperation based on customs and common sense with no need for a state to enforce them. The rules would be slim abstract spooks that are mostly in line with the objective interests of society
1
0
1
@dagda @taylan @snacks @waltercool
This is unironically why we need the star trek replicator before true communism can be ushered in
1
0
1
With perfect economic planning everyone in the world could have european middle class access to goods and resources, there's some socialist autist I forgot the name of that did the math. It's not very likely to happen but not science fiction either
1
0
1
@dagda @taylan @snacks @waltercool
I'm all in favour of some government intervention in the economy but I'm extremely sceptical of holistic government economic planning, like the USSR. Perhaps it could work with some sort of overarching world federation like a global EU with far higher intervention in each countries resource management.
I think generally the free market is far superior at distributing goods, even if it can end up with both waste and unreasonable profit margins on certain goods. That being said, I think our productive capabilities for most goods has only gotten better and better. With certain things like food, we are almost effectively at post scarcity. It's just we lack the means to distribute it, especially excess, to those who need it.
The thing with the star trek replicator is that not only would it remove scarcity, it also bypasses the need for a distribution system. For as long as we can't create goods individually in our own homes, we'll be stuck deciding between a way to both create those resources and also a way to distribute them.
1
0
1
Star Trvke
0
0
2