(In Archer voice) Nevermind! It's too late, you've ruined the moment.

About me being a Stoic. I did appreciate them once but I find it alienating from what it means to be human - like the way it deals with losing loved ones and the way it (unintentionally) undermines genuine, deeply felt human relationships. I disagree with it for other reasons too.

You know how you quickly and easily kick the legs out from under someone's sympathy? Tell them "believe this, and it will make you better than others. It will make you a special kind of human..."

I don't know what this means.

It means I'm the greatest for not thinking I'm the greatest. Irony is a mastery of truth.

Okay, now you're saying something more sensible. So let's work with this. There's this natural drive to be moral. How come this natural drive to be moral rarely wins over the other drives? — Agustino

You're wrong here. Human beings are moral beings, so the natural drive to be moral mostly wins over the drive to be immoral.

Second, okay - if I grant you that the immoral act of lying is learned, then why the hell do people lie so much? Look at the statistics for God's sake, and then tell me that lying is learned. For example: — Agustino

The problem is that you were arguing carte blanche (meaning in a completely unqualified way), that morality is a matter of resisting natural urges. But this can't be true because the tendency to be honest which is a moral virtue, is what underlies, and is necessary for communication. Since the ability to communicate relies on this tendency toward honesty, then lying must be something learned after the ability to communicate is learned. We learn how to communicate, then we learn how to lie.

Since honesty is natural for human beings, and lying is learned, and honesty is moral, while lying is immoral, this completely destroys your assertion that morality is a matter of resisting natural tendencies.

Look at the statistics for God's sake, and then tell me that lying is learned. — Agustino

The statistics are irrelevant. Mathematics is learned, languages are learned. Consider the number of people involved in these activities. The number of people involved in a particular activity has nothing to do with whether the activity is learned or natural.

Ok. Don't become an aphorist.

Aphorisms? Laughorisms, stupid and flat.
Profundity? A fun-ditty, about this or that.

Though, that is my favorite one, bar none. So expect to hear it over 9000 more time.

You see a naked woman as a man, and you start lusting for her. That's the natural response. Morality - not lusting - is learned.

Funny, I'm almost entirely opposite of you here. Some indigenous native cultures don't seem to have any sort of Western styled cultural modesty about their bodies; and the clothes that they do wear appear to be more pragmatically inspired by their location. Certain Christian Missionaries had quite a time in Polynesia if I remember correctly.

Parents teach us how to behave, they and society tells us what we should lust for, and we put our own spin on this...I'm not saying we don't have a natural sex drive, only that simple seeing a naked person is not, in itself sufficient to explain lust.

I also don't think the 'moral state' is man's natural state. Man is an animal, one who is subject to the same basis drives as all other animals. Morality is learnt, the same way modesty is learnt.

[as a side comment I don't think Trump lies about important matters, I think he believes what he says, even if everyone else in the world (well maybe not Pence) thinks it's batshit).

About me being a Stoic. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Okay.

I did appreciate them once but I find it alienating from what it means to be human - like the way it deals with losing loved ones and the way it (unintentionally) undermines genuine, deeply felt human relationships. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I think Stoicism is right, and our common way of dealing with such things by wailing and crying is irrational - although indeed human.

You're wrong here. Human beings are moral beings, so the natural drive to be moral mostly wins over the drive to be immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

I suggest you just take a look at a history book, and repeat this with a straight face if you can. I'm sure you won't be able to. Morality won here - clearly *facepalm* :



Behold your morality:


What you're saying is so utterly absurd that it should be rejected out of hand, as blatant nonsense. A cursory glance at history is sufficient to convince anyone. Mankind is marked by brutality and viciousness - periods of peace and prosperity are relatively rare.

But this can't be true because the tendency to be honest which is a moral virtue, is what underlies, and is necessary for communication. Since the ability to communicate relies on this tendency toward honesty, then lying must be something learned after the ability to communicate is learned. We learn how to communicate, then we learn how to lie. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is your rationalistic explanation. I am judging by how this adheres with the facts. If it is natural for humans to be honest, then I would expect lying to be a rarity - but it's not - it's quite frequent actually.

The statistics are irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, because they disagree with you.

simple seeing a naked person is not, in itself sufficient to explain lust. — Cavacava

Right. Time for a biology lesson son.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3283433/A-majority-American-women-lust-men-despite-relationship-say-makes-want-partner-more.html

Turns out a naked person isn't even required.

That article is isn't germane or explicative of lust :s , it is in fact mind numbing.

That article is isn't germane or explicative of lust :s , it is in fact mind numbing. — Cavacava

Yes, the article isn't the biology lesson, I meant you should study biology, to see that the brain automatically releases certain chemicals upon certain sights - including in the case of seeing a naked woman.

The article however does illustrate that lust is so prevalent, it can be taken as the natural condition of mankind. To depart from the natural condition takes effort and education.

The article however does illustrate that lust is so prevalent, it can be taken as the natural condition of mankind. To depart from the natural condition takes effort and education. — Agustino

If you want to know the truth about someone, ask them what they think is true of everyone else.

That's an article presenting statistics. I'm not going to dream up what the truth is about other people - as you seem to be doing - I will look at the facts. That's what the facts reveal. Do you disagree with that? Show me proof.

The world will never change until we stop with the stupid fantasies, and start accepting reality as it is. Acceptance is the first step to changing things. Blind rejection of reality based on false but comfortable beliefs will do nothing. Human beings are ruthless and rapacious animals by nature - it takes education and effort to change them. Unless this essential principle is recognised, we'll never be able to do anything.

This is the simple fact that progressives around the world do not get. Instead they cry about conservatives being pessimistic, etc. This isn't pessimism. This is realism. I'm optimistic about the future precisely because I'm realistic about the present. We - the human race - are not great. Enough with the hubris.

The problems of the world can never be solved by these pink cloud flying-unicorn loving people, who think there are no problems to solve in the first place. Everything is rosy and shiny around, just Trump is the problem. Give me a break >:O The world has much more serious problems. It's almost unbelievable to see how people are holding onto beliefs based on utterly no evidence, and just reject statistics, evidence, and results of studies as "irrelevant". Sureeeee - let's determine what the natural condition of man is by sitting in an armchair and dreaming up how honesty is required for communication to be possible. That's how we're going to do it. Or by dreaming up ad hominems to dismiss evidence.

You see a naked woman as a man, and you start lusting for her. That's the natural response. Morality - not lusting - is learned.

And you use a study based on the cultural experiences of United States women in committed relationships to try to somehow demonstrate that lust is not a learned response, well no way (N) . Your response makes no sense.

lust is not a learned response — Cavacava

I don't care if it's a learned response or not. Of course everything you do is to some extent learned. That's irrelevant. But some things are "natural". This may be hard to describe what it means. But basically it's what is there for most people. The behaviours/tendencies that are common.

Very much in the style of Trump, what you believe is true is true, that's not realism, that is idealism.

What you're saying is so utterly absurd that it should be rejected out of hand, as blatant nonsense. A cursory glance at history is sufficient to convince anyone. Mankind is marked by brutality and viciousness - periods of peace and prosperity are relatively rare. — Agustino

So what? Do I have to point out to you every time that a human being acts morally in order to argue that human beings are moral beings? Your argument is ridiculous, it's like pointing to the murderers in jail and saying "here's proof that human beings are murderers". You have no basis for any inductive conclusion here. Your skills of inductive reasoning are sorely lacking.

Take a stroll down a city street and compare how many people are acting morally with how many are acting immorally. Even in a war torn country you'll fid that morality far out weighs immorality.

This is your rationalistic explanation. I am judging by how this adheres with the facts. If it is natural for humans to be honest, then I would expect lying to be a rarity - but it's not - it's quite frequent actually. — Agustino

As I said, this argument is also ridiculous. You have already opposed natural tendencies with learnt ones, this was your division not mine. Therefore it is not natural for human beings to speak and communicate with one another, yet we find all human beings engaged in this unnatural activity. So, if you would not expect the majority of human being to be engaged in lying, because lying is unnatural, you would also not expect the majority of human being to be engaged in communication, because communication is unnatural. See how this claim of yours, that if lying was unnatural it would be a rarity, is utterly ridiculous?

The point is, that human beings engage in learnt (unnatural) activities quite frequently, all the time in fact. So to say that you would expect such unnatural activities, like communicating, and lying, to be a rarity simply because they are unnatural, is a farce.

Yeah, because they disagree with you. — Agustino

The statistics are irrelevant, because even if the statisticians claim that one hundred percent of the people lie, this does not prove that lying is natural. One hundred percent of grown adults communicate in some way, they do some form of mathematics, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether these things are learnt or natural.

The problem here, is as I pointed out at first, you have a very distorted concept of "natural".

One salient point about James Comey's testimony before the Senate is that he was very well-prepared. When he started to interact with Donald Trump, he made the judgement that Trump was untrustworthy, and decided to keep notes of all of their interactions (per this article). So the claims Comey made - that Trump asked him to lay off the Flynn investigation, and also demanded personal loyalty - were recorded by Comey in minutes that he drafted directly after these meetings. Myself, and many other observers, believe Comey's testimony, and not Trump's, refutation, as Trump is a proven liar, bullshitter and confabulist, who can't tell the truth, because he has no grasp of what the word means.

Trump has said he is willing to testify under oath. All that would prove is that he is quite capable of lying under oath, which I believe he has amply demonstrated already.

Oath or no oath makes no difference to the practised liar.

The latest installment in this ever more bizarre spectacle: that after James Comey's testimony, Trump came out and declared himself 'vindicated' by what Comey had said - and Trump supporters believe him!

Why 'vindicated'? Because Comey appeared to say that the aim of the Russian investigation was not Trump himself, but Flynn. Apparently Trump took this to mean, he's off the hook for that investigation.

But what about the fact that Comey said Trump had pressured him to drop the investigation into Flynn, or demanded 'personal loyalty'? Trump denied saying it. So this means that one of them is lying: either Trump is lying, or Comey has committed perjury. Trump said:

James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said, and some of the things he said just weren’t true.

So - where Comey said that Trump wasn't being investigated for collusion - that part is true. But where Comey said that Trump demanded personal loyalty, and asked him to drop the Flynn investigation - they're lies! So the part that suits the narrative is true, anything that doesn't, is false. Excellent illustration of 'post-truth' in practice.

Keep up. — Thorongil

I would, if you were worthy of some attention.

Oath or no oath makes no difference to the practised liar. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nor to the Bullshitter; which is what we have to hand.

I supplied evidence for what I believe.

So what? Do I have to point out to you every time that a human being acts morally in order to argue that human beings are moral beings? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, but you should show evidence that human beings are moral. So far, you've provided nothing but empty speculation.

Take a stroll down a city street and compare how many people are acting morally with how many are acting immorally. Even in a war torn country you'll fid that morality far out weighs immorality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, if you take a stroll down a city street you'll see very few moral acts, and a lot of immoral ones. Whether these are petty immoralities - such cursing a beggar, or bad-mouthing someone - or bigger immoralities such as punching someone in the face. The vast majority of what you'll see though will be neither moral nor immoral behaviour - just people moving around.

So, if you would not expect the majority of human being to be engaged in lying, because lying is unnatural, you would also not expect the majority of human being to be engaged in communication, because communication is unnatural. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it's ridiculous to think communication is unnatural - that's what's ridiculous. If I stop a random man in the street and tell him communication is unnatural he'll laugh in my face. But it seems apparent you have no problem with holding such a dumb idea. As I told you before, you often remind me of the armchair philosopher, who has little experience with the world.

The statistics are irrelevant, because even if the statisticians claim that one hundred percent of the people lie, this does not prove that lying is natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, it my not prove that lying is natural, but it sure as hell does prove that human beings are immoral in their natural state.

You should stop with the sophistry and focusing on side-issues, and instead concentrate on the focus of this discussion. What is the base state, the natural state, call it however you want to call it - of mankind? And that state is immorality, although human beings also do have, as you say, a desire to be moral. But that desire is often overcome by other desires.

The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” — Banno

As in war...

"All warfare is based on deception." Sun Tzu (544 - 496 BC).
"In war, truth is the first casualty." Aeschylus (525 - 456 BC).

"All warfare is based on deception". Sun Tzu (544 - 496 BC).
"In war, truth is the first casualty". Aeschylus (525BC - 456 BC). — jkop

(Y)

Behold your dear leader Obama Wayfarer:


Article
Article
Vacations
Yachts


Another book on the way, his White House memoir - more millions off the fools! >:O