The Sperminator

[mr.thrifty]

Pursuing one's self-interest is not coextensive with taking advantage of your fellow man.

The fact is that regardless of how one of competition's losers may be able to find solutions to their loss in the future, at the time that they fail, they generally will face a certain amount of pain and suffering in the immediate aftermath of their plans not coming to fruition. The point is that their loss does not detract one bit from the benefits enjoyed by the winner. Their self-interest is not corrupted in any way shape or form by the loss of their competitor. It does not become any less 'truly' in their interest. The welfare of those with whom one competes is none of their business, unless they can find some kind of advantage in the competitor achieving what they desire.

Non-human animals do live by standards that would be considered criminal by human moral standards. That does not make it any less in their interest. It means that it would not be in the human's interest, but not because the competitor will suffer harm. If a man lives like a predator, he opens his life to predation in turn. It is in each human's self-interest to not be a predator, but the benefit to the welfare of others is incidental, and not fundamental to the moral quality of that orientation.



Trying to sound so morally superior was the impression I got.

That also.....

 

[devilof76]

They kinda go hand in hand. There's always someone out there who thinks there's a level of intelligence able to discern what's in everyone's best interest. They think there's some abstract form of perfection that the world should fit into and that all it takes is someone smart enough to understand the moral ideal, and then powerful enough to enforce it. Because clearly, the plebes are too dumb to know what's best, and who are they to tarnish the morally perfect world which their superiors have forseen.

Classic, but as much a load of poop now as it was when the first poophole dreamed it up.

 

[Kabukiman]

Trying to sound so morally superior was the impression I got.

That's basically this guy's MO. Check out the Willow thread for his finest performance yet.

Here's a taste:

Wearing make up implies that a woman is in the mood.

 

[Blackthornone]

That's basically this guy's MO. Check out the Willow thread for his finest performance yet.

"Here's a taste:

That's basically this guy's MO. Check out the Willow thread for his finest performance yet.

Here's a taste:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthornone View Post
Wearing make up implies that a woman is in the mood."
Make up imparts an appearance that is inherently sexual, which is to say that it is sexual whether you believe it is or not, whether it is the reason you are using it or not, or whether you know it is or not. It triggers a subconscious mechanism in the human psyche that makes humans respond positively to that type of change in appearance. Now, if you are the kind of person that believes that things can only be a certain thing if you believe it is or things can only be doing a certain thing if you believe they do, then you will of course deny that make up is sexual unless you believe it is sexual. As I said before, just because a woman puts on make up does not mean that her conscious intention is sexual. Similarly, just because one does not drink alcohol with the conscious intention to destroy one's liver, brain, kidneys and heart does not mean that it doesn't. It will whether that is your intention to or not, and you most likely won't be consciously aware of it, either.
Just to say it again, the fact that a certain type of make up is inherently sexual isn't MY idea. It is the idea of various behaviorists.

You could argue that putting on a Santa Claus suit and beard doesn't mean you want to play Santa Claus, but don't say that wearing that doesn't make you look like Santa Claus.

If you are a woman and wear make up, do you do that based on logic or do you do it because it is a cultural tradition that you have accepted because every other woman does it? In other words, do you wear make up for logical or emotional/cultural reasons? I think that most women do it for cultural or emotional reasons without any thought of how logical it is or not, because most women perceive that any logic concerning it is unimportant. I perceive the logicalness of all things to be important. It doesn't matter what they are. I think that life should be as good as possible. That means knowing the truth, and the only way know the truth is with logic. I like to know the real effects of things, the effects that things have whether you believe in them or not. Only when you know what the things you use really do, will you know what you are really doing when you use them, regardless of HOW you believe you are using those things.

 

[Blackthornone]

Pursuing one's self-interest is not coextensive with taking advantage of your fellow man.

The fact is that regardless of how one of competition's losers may be able to find solutions to their loss in the future, at the time that they fail, they generally will face a certain amount of pain and suffering in the immediate aftermath of their plans not coming to fruition. The point is that their loss does not detract one bit from the benefits enjoyed by the winner. Their self-interest is not corrupted in any way shape or form by the loss of their competitor. It does not become any less 'truly' in their interest. The welfare of those with whom one competes is none of their business, unless they can find some kind of advantage in the competitor achieving what they desire.

Non-human animals do live by standards that would be considered criminal by human moral standards. That does not make it any less in their interest. It means that it would not be in the human's interest, but not because the competitor will suffer harm. If a man lives like a predator, he opens his life to predation in turn. It is in each human's self-interest to not be a predator, but the benefit to the welfare of others is incidental, and not fundamental to the moral quality of that orientation.



Trying to sound so morally superior was the impression I got.

You are referring to relative success, and not true success.

It is possible for all people fulfill their most fundamental desires and needs, and to do what really in their best interests, but there are some things that a person CANNOT do in order to do that, because doing those things is fundamentally inconsistent with what is in one's best interests.

As far as trying to sound morally superior, of COURSE I was expressing an idea of moral superiority. It is necessary when you are arguing about a moral subject. When you are arguing about a technical issue, you express an idea of technical superiority, and when you argue about aesthetics, you express an idea of aesthetic superiority. That is what an argument in favor of a thing is,which is to present an idea which is superior. That is the whole point of arguing. Every argument involves presenting an idea as superior. Now, presenting an idea that is superior is not the same as presenting oneself as superior, any more than presenting an argument that is a very emotional one means that the arguer is more emotional person.

 

[Blackthornone]

They kinda go hand in hand. There's always someone out there who thinks there's a level of intelligence able to discern what's in everyone's best interest. They think there's some abstract form of perfection that the world should fit into and that all it takes is someone smart enough to understand the moral ideal, and then powerful enough to enforce it. Because clearly, the plebes are too dumb to know what's best, and who are they to tarnish the morally perfect world which their superiors have forseen.

Classic, but as much a load of poop now as it was when the first poophole dreamed it up.

If there is a better way and people don't accept it, it is because they are too stubborn to do what is best. Everyone does things because they believe they are right and or is necessary for their survival,and they always refuse change because change is uncomfortable, even when it is for their betterment. Just ask any junkie how hard it is to get clean. The best ideas will always be seen as worthless by people who are too stubborn to even try them. That doesn't mean that the ideas are defective. It means that the people are too stubborn to do them.

 

[The Ween]

This link sums it up.

https://www.arnoldexposed.com/arnold.htm

This is a choice excerpt.:

"Arnold is a serial misogynist and has a history of sexually harassing women. The LA Times has published multiple stories of different women that Arnold has harassed. In one case, whilst on the set of Terminator 2 he approached a female crew member out of the blue, put his hands into her blouse and pulled her breasts out of her bra. An observer said: "I couldn't believe what I was seeing. This woman's nipples were exposed, and here's Arnold and a few of his clones laughing." The woman in question broke into tears and fled to a nearby trailer. See 'Arnold the Barbarian", an article by Premiere Magazine in March 2001, for more revelations, should you be able to stomach it.

In Nov. 2000, he pulled British TV commentator Anna Richardson onto his lap after an interview, grabbed her breast, and squeezed her nipple -- all without any kind of permission. She stood up and told him "You' re making me nervous." But Arnold told her to relax and pulled her back on his knee. Finally, he let her up, patting her behind as she went off. Richardson has since has filed a libel action . "

I would've shed a little light down on his ugly ass face if he did something like that to me!

 

[devilof76]

You are referring to relative success, and not true success.

If there is a better way and people don't accept it, it is because they are too stubborn to do what is best.

Who are you to say what way is best?

That is why it is called self-interest, and not the philosoper-king's highest conception of what is best for you, not the Messiah's highest conception of what is best for you, not the caliph's, not the emperor's, not the pope's, the dictator's or the president's.

For someone other than the individual to put conditions on the quality of a person's self-interest is a contradiction in terms. The moral purpose of any one human life is the achievement of their own, personal happiness. They will know if they have failed themselves, without pronouncements from on high. The relative happiness of strangers is immaterial in relation to that end, and to posture as morally superior because one subordinates their self to a hypothetical or real 'other' is morally bankrupt.

I am not suggesting that your problem is that you believe in morally greater and lesser individuals. My problem is that your position is morally inferior, and I would bet my lucky penny that a version of exactly what you're preaching was what Arnold used to justify all of his conquests.

 

[Blackthornone]

Who are you to say what way is best?

That is why it is called self-interest, and not the philosoper-king's highest conception of what is best for you, not the Messiah's highest conception of what is best for you, not the caliph's, not the emperor's, not the pope's, the dictator's or the president's.

For someone other than the individual to put conditions on the quality of a person's self-interest is a contradiction in terms.

The beauty of it is that neither my own personal opinions, nor the personal opinions of anyone else should be used to determine what is in one's best interests. One's own personal opinions and feelings are too tinged with one's own personal experiences, biases and such to be trusted as a valid guide. What enables the longest possible physical survival should be used to determine what is in one's own best interests, because that alone is the most objective determiner of best interest. One must first be alive in order to have self interest, and so one first must have self, and therefore what allows oneself to have self the longest is the most objective measure. What enables the most physical health and longest lifespan is the only valid and true determiner. Everything else is subjective. You cannot really have a best of anything that is determined subjectively. Then, once you determine what allows the longest lifespan, you determine what things there are to do that you can do to improve yourself that interest you the most that do not contradict your being able to have the longest possible physical lifespan and health. Thus, you have the objective standard of what is best for you met, with the personal individual fulfillment criteria met as well. Each person will have different things that interest them, but only those things that do not reduce one's lifespan can really be in one's best interests. Any other conclusion would be illogical. If you cannot measure a something objectively, you cannot say it is more important than the things that CAN be measured objectively, ie health and longevity.

ANYTHING that is totally subjective can be a total illusion.

 

[devilof76]

Longevity is an animal's standard of value.

Happiness can be measured objectively, but it is possible only to an individual, and it's only possible to do for themself. Without the individual's experiences and personal value-judgments, how are they supposed to reach any kind of determination as to what makes them happy?

There is nothing subjective about it, and to revert to materialist notions of self-interest because happiness can allegedly not be 'measured' is to default on the responsibility of pursuing happiness as one's highest moral objective.

Like I said: bankrupt.

 

[Blackthornone]

Who are you to say what way is best?

They will know if they have failed themselves, without pronouncements from on high.

How will they know that? How will they know if they have succeeded? A feeling? People make mistakes all the time from moment to moment, because at the time, they thought it best, only to find out later that they were wrong. How is the realization of the sum total of their lives any different? It can be just as much an illusion as any particular moment in your life, and IS, when you have illogical beliefs, even if those beliefs were conventional ones which were shared by everyone you knew. The life of almost every human being who ever lived was based upon illusion.

 

[devilof76]

I am done with humoring your nihilism. Adios.

 

[Blackthornone]

Longevity is an animal's standard of value.

Happiness can be measured objectively, but it is possible only to an individual, and it's only possible to do for themself. Without the individual's experiences and personal value-judgments, how are they supposed to reach any kind of determination as to what makes them happy?

They can certainly make a determination, but that doesn't make it true. It could all be an illusion, because one's experiences were based on illusion.

 

[Blackthornone]

I am done with humoring your nihilism. Adios.

Calling for an objective determiner of value is far from nihilism. It is the opposite. I am calling for an intrinsic determiner of value, and am saying that a totally subjective one has no value, and is basically a form of nihilism. I did no say that subjective interpretation had no value, only that since it the value of it could not be determined by objective standards, it cannot be more valid than the value of something that CAN be measured objectively. After all, if this is not observed, people smoke pot, tobacco, and drink alcohol and call it acceptable, when it kills them.
That in reality is nihilism.




You wrote:
"The relative happiness of strangers is immaterial in relation to that end, and to posture as morally superior because one subordinates their self to a hypothetical or real 'other' is morally bankrupt.

I am not suggesting that your problem is that you believe in morally greater and lesser individuals. My problem is that your position is morally inferior, and I would bet my lucky penny that a version of exactly what you're preaching was what Arnold used to justify all of his conquests. "




I do surrender my ego in determining right and wrong. The ego is not the self. It isn't the same thing as subordinating myself. The ego is an artificial self.

I think that there are morally greater and lesser beliefs and actions, which is not the same thing as individuals.
Since you seem to equate morality with the ego,that is why you perceive me to be morally bankrupt.

 

[Kabukiman]

 

[devilof76]

Intrinsic values are not objective, which makes them essentially subjective. Denying the validity of individual consciouness is the denial of consciousness as such.

Denying human consciousness is tantamount to denying human values, and as a human being, that is about as nihilistic as you can get.

 

[Blackthornone]

Who are you to say what way is best?

That is why it is called self-interest, and not the philosoper-king's highest conception of what is best for you, not the Messiah's highest conception of what is best for you, not the caliph's, not the emperor's, not the pope's, the dictator's or the president's.

For someone other than the individual to put conditions on the quality of a person's self-interest is a contradiction in terms. The moral purpose of any one human life is the achievement of their own, personal happiness. They will know if they have failed themselves, without pronouncements from on high. The relative happiness of strangers is immaterial in relation to that end, and to posture as morally superior because one subordinates their self to a hypothetical or real 'other' is morally bankrupt.

I am not suggesting that your problem is that you believe in morally greater and lesser individuals. My problem is that your position is morally inferior, and I would bet my lucky penny that a version of exactly what you're preaching was what Arnold used to justify all of his conquests.

Intrinsic values are not objective, which makes them essentially subjective. Denying the validity of individual consciouness is the denial of consciousness as such.

Denying human consciousness is tantamount to denying human values, and as a human being, that is about as nihilistic as you can get.

Intrinsic values are as objective. The intrinsic values of gold are objectively determinable. True morality is no different.
I have denied that human JUDGMENT is reliable or always valid. I said individual judgment isn't trustworthy. I never said that human consciousness doesn't exist, only that there is no reason for it to be certain that it really knows what it is perceiving. I said that the individual consciousnesses cannot accurately determine the truth when filtered through the subjective filter of the ego.
Human values exist, but are only valid if they can be objectively proven to be correct. Otherwise, it is really no better than mob consciousness, in which people get carried away by a feeling that leads them to destroy. The consumption of alcohol for example to cause oneself to have loss of consciousness of the world around oneself to cause oneself to feel better by being relieved of the burdens of feeling stress by drinking a poison, follows the same principle as the people of Jonestown drinking the Kool-Aid. The only difference is that alcohol takes longer to kill. Both are examples of people drinking poison to escape their problems in this world to make them feel better. Both examples are wrong, yet both alcohol drinkers and the Kool Aid drinkers believed that it was a beneficial action.

 

[Spartan Rex]

Cant we all agree Ahnuld was naughty?




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Jen]

I always thought Arnold sucked as an actor. Only liked him in the Terminator movies because he hardly spoke...and he wasn't human so his bad acting was somewhat appropriate. His scandals just make me think he is a crappy person as well as a crappy actor. I'll probably watch the Terminator movies again but I doubt I'll watch anything new by him.

 

[DiFabio]

Just found out that I'm the son of Arnold Schwarzenegger.