I've heard the same about Bentham and some others.

So assuming he was unable to form a lasting romantic relationship, you're saying that he never paid money for sex, despite being more than wealthy enough to, right?

Right, and I'm not sure that's solely limited to "fascism"; the "tribalistic" nature is definitely a part of who were are.

Whether it's "fascism" or anything else, I believe it's possible for people (particularly ones who feel alienated or lonely, maybe even in part due to some modern "social ills") to be drawn into "fascism" or "tribalistc" behaviors or ideologies, due to them providing the illusion of being 'part of a tribe' or part of something "greater than yourself".

I'm tempted to venture some aesthetic arguments against masturbation, if nothing else.

And not specifically about "masturbation", but I'm not sure that healthy self-love as promoted by psychology can be conflated with "self-indulgence", such as overeating and the morbid obesity which tends to correlate with that "narcissistic" variant of "self-love" - rather I'd be more inclined to view a measure of self-discipline or restraint as actual "self-love", and pure self-indulgence as more akin to neglect.


If by "happy" you mean pure self-indulgence, I don't see that as a very meaningful end or that true "happiness" could be reduced to pure indulgence (if that was the case, then I'd venture that our Neanderthal ancestors would have discovered the secret to "happiness" eons ago, and that no modern existential thought on the subject would be necessary).

Whether one quotes Kant. John Stuart Mill, or any other modern philosophical thinker.

If one believes that truth "does not exist", then they believe that axiom to be "true", rather than false, right?

So it's an oxymoron.

Every position, whether it is "religious, political, philosophical" or otherwise, begins and relies on some founding axiom or inherent principle, whether or not one wishes to use the word "faith" or otherwise".

For example, most would reject the idea of solipsism on "faith", they couldn't "prove" it true or false, but would consider it absurd and reject it on that basis.

Legal philosophy holds individuals responsible for their actions; one can't simply reduce it to pure genetics; such thought also hints at scientific racism. (Even if a murderer such as Charles Manson is believed to have co-morbid mental or psychological problems, they aren't able to simply write off of their crimes and avoid being held personally or characterly responsible for their actions under the law).

(e.x. Such as suggesting that if black people have higher rates of crime, then discriminating against black people as a whole should be targeted, regardless of whether or not they have actually committed a crime, or the fact that there exist innocent black people as well as guilty white people).

Likewise, reducing criminal behavior to sub-rational factors, which as far as psychology on the subject is concerned (e.x. Steven Pinker), is an inherent, survivalistic trait in all of us would be absurd as well. Since legal philosophy is based on both "sub-rational" as well as rational motives in crime.

For example, the difference between 2nd degree murder and 1st degree murder is based on the degree which reason rather than emotion or "instinct" plays in the act - 2nd degree murder is done "in the heat of the moment" when a person is not thinking clearly, while 1st degree murder is done pre-meditatively or rationally, and would include rational motives (such as murder for money, murder in the name of a religion or ideology, etc) - not merely reducible to feelings of anger, aggression, and so on.

Legal philosophy isn't based on "norms", it's based on harm and defined acts (e.x. murder, rape, and so forth), popular "opinion". is irrelevant.

I'm not aware of any modern "society" that runs on norms such as "ambiguously defined popular opinions" to begin with - such as how "popular opinion" has no bearing on the interpretation of a law by the federal courts, and was never intended to to begin with.

(Much as saying that if "popular" opinion is that the earth is flat, that this dictates whether or not it actually is flat, is rather absurd, I'd view this as absurd for the same reasons).

Likewise, the rationale behind something becoming a popular "norm" to begin with obviously plays a role (e.x. abolitionists considered slavery evil for various reasons even before it became ambiguously "popular" to think so).

In the book "Between Good and Evil", the author asserts that the world is "in a war" between good and evil, and that evil "adapts" and takes on more subtle forms; I thought it was a fascinating read.

If it's not evil to destroy agency, then who cares, if that is what someone wishes to do (whether it actually means, anyway).

[reply="Any such discussion must include Hannah Arendt. It's about our humanity, not about any deity. As with any ethical tale, god is irrelevant.

Evil is the outpouring of a failure to partake in one's humanity, of not recognise the diverging, organic nature of people

Then you're arguing that it's evil to "not partake in one's humanity" or "recognize the diverging, organic nature of people.

of not seeing oneself as having a choice; the thoughtlessness of Eichmann the mere uncritical functionary.Banno;402329"]
Then you're arguing that it's evil for people to not be given a choice.

Likewise, I'm not aware of any arguments that a person "doesn't" have a choice in regards to good and evil; presumably the Nazis "had a choice" as whether or not exterminate Jews, but rather the arguments are in favor of steering people in the direction of good choices, as opposed to evil ones.

So you deny your own agency in order to follow what you take to be the natural law.

So again, you're arguing that "denying one's own agency" is evil.

Simply by living and partaking in the acts you currently are, you're already "denying" your agency in other potential ways, since you could always invest the same amount of time you do posting here in raping, murdering, torturing children if you were so inclined.

Whether or not you invoke "natural law" (which arguably isn't any more relevant in this discussion than "God is"), or simply your own agency or "free will" to choose to post here instead of raping, murdering, torturing children, the end result is the same.

In doing so you are dishonest to yourself, denying that you have a choice while in the very act of choosing.

So it's evil to be dishonest to oneself as well? One doesn't have a choice as to whether to be honest with themselves as well.

It can be defined better or worse, as "perfectly" as pure mathematics, no not quite.

One defining "good" as putting Jewish people in gas chambers, and "evil" as promoting peace, is obviously doing a piss poor job of it.

It seems your conflating consequential decisions with "rightness" or "wrongness"; my argument is that a person choosing to "do" such and such a thing doesn't make it "right" for them.

Morality - priniciples (e.x. respect for others' property, personal autonomy, etc)

Ethics - rules (e.x. laws and punishments for theft, murder, rape, fraud, etc).

I am intensely aware of how painfully difficult it is for me to participate in male dominated forums. I know I am thinking on a different level and that I am not conforming with the male idea of what is important. I have been banned enough times to know that it is a risk to go against male control of forums. All this seems to make a discussion of gender differences, and how our thoughts are shaped, very important.

My belief is that while there may tend to be some noticible differences between "male" or "female" communication styles, as far as general "rules" or specific individuals go", the overarching principles are used both by men and women, and trying to make anything akin to an "exact mathematical science" to it is practically impossible, so I avoid taking dichotomies too seriously.

A female lawyer or a judge in court is obviously following the same overarching "rules" and standards that a male lawyer or judge would; much as a male tennis player or a female tennis player would both still be following the same "rules" of the game, sportsmanship, etc, and performing the same types of "moves" and physical performances (with the exception being the differences in the rules for men and women's leagues).

Abigail Adams prodded her husband John Adams to think of women when he was working on the constitution. History has said John Adams considered his wife to be an excellent advisor. Hopefully, we all know Franklin Roosevelt also considered his wife to be someone to listen to, and that Elenor Roosevelt played a strong role in his decisions and national policy. That clearly is not the case for Ivana Trump who is the worst first lady we have had in a long time and the tyrannical rule of Donald Trump.

I try to avoid paying attention to that and all of the accompanying gossip, so I can't comment honestly.

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)?
I don't believe chimpanzees and bonobos are very accurately comparable, other than maybe in some very "primal" aspects (e.x. such as in writings on evolutionary psychology, which aren't relevant to higher level human activities such as reasoning, mathematics, arts, etc).

Supposedly while the bonobo males are "physically stronger", the females communicate better and "work as a team" to keep the males in line, is what I've heard.

In the back of my mind is the Haudenosaunee and their a matriarchal society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_among_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America
And the Etruscans who were contemporaries with Athens and Rome.
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/30/archives/etruscan-women-had-womens-lib.html

As far as history goes, I don't believe it's entirely "dichotomic", and there have been prominent women in every major historical era that I'm aware of, even if it tended to be "rarer" or less well-known than today; possibly with family, socioeconomics, and other factors having a significant influence with notions of "upward mobility" much less common (e.x. Cleopatra, Queen Victoria, Joan of Arc, just to name a few).

Some ancient female queens, such as some Chinese empresses allegedly even had male "sex slaves" or "concubines".

I don't think the definitions are used entirely consistently; supposedly "ethics" deals more with specific "rules", while "morality" deals more with principles, philosophy, etc.

Correct, I never see a consistent or honest definition of "religion" used, usually just a strawman or neologism in which it refers to "anything a person doesn't like", or neutral concepts such as "dogmatism" or "legalism" or "legalistic attitudes or behaviors" which have nothing directly or inherently to do with "religion", and exist in other contexts, such as political ideology, or secular "religion" or philosophy.


Such as the principles of the Secular Humanist "religion" (or philosophy if that is prefered), often ignorantly or dishonestly conflated with "atheism" by its adherants, which are simply accepted on "faith", "axiom", and so on, unable to be further asserted except by circular reasoning, and highly questionable and debatable to begin with, whether from a "religious", a "secular" perspective, or anything else; just being one of many different sets of philosophical axioms in existence.

Seems the topic has drifted a bit away from the OP.

Not to mention, for what it's worth, the vast majority of social institutions have been around for a comparatively "long time", maybe not thousands of years but hundreds.

(For example, most popular science media or proganda on TV is oudated, 19th century information and learning axioms, much as "science", as in Francis Bacon's scientific or "inductive" method has been around since the 16-17th century).

Even comparatively "new" enterprises, such the web or social media, the "Information Age", or the video game industry and its massive popularity today as a hobby for both men and women (despite having like many "new" things been viewed as a fad during its early days), still iikely have roots in "older" things; such as competitive "mental" games like chess, poker, etc being precursors to "video games".

Ideally a person would be moral enough on their own free will or personal accord that mere "fear of the law" would not be the sole thing stopping them, but in the worst case of individuals, I believe that's all that they respond to; that seems to be the basic legal or moral philosophy. (Much as the philosophy of the law holds individuals personally accountable for their actions, rather than attempting to "reduce" it to other causations or determinisms on the basic of other axioms, which thankfully is nonsense as far as the legal and moral philosophy is concerned; even if wrongdoers do have "other problems", such as mental problems or bad influences, the law distinguished between evil premediated behavior, intentions, and so on and merely "having problems").

If your argument had merit, then you could argue that one could just make murder or rape legal and it "wouldn't change" anything; I don't buy that.

For what it's worth, I was trying to be a little sardonic to prove a point, maybe I overdid and got too personal, I apologise.

What methodology of rating is being used?

More people watch reality TV shows than reading philosophy books, and most media, including or maybe even especially TV and radio is marketed to the 6th grade reading level, so if anything "highest rated" is a red flag.

Regardless, "rating" has nothing to do with it as a serious discussion of power; Meditations on Violence basically renders these stupid discussions obsolete; shows like GoT are a fantasy on the same level as a Mickey Mouse cartoon, people just naively assume "negative" is realistic because of the negativity bias hardwired into us for survival reasons; this is why "bad news" sells and dumb people catastrophically fear deaths from unlikely 'negative' events like terrorism, global warming alarmism, and so on, when dying in the bathtub or in a car accident is statistically more likely.

This is also why Machiavelli, Alinsky, Greene, RedBeard, Stirner, and similar nihilist morons are useless and unworthy of serious discussion, and the only reason they're more popular to discuss than Rory Miller or other serious authors is because they 'sell' to a dumbed-down mindset (some of them basically even admitted their crap wouldn't even 'work' except on a very stupid person, or that in many cases their "fans" are just mentally disturbed individuals who conflate 'pathology' with ideology')..

If anything they had to say wasn't worthless, there's no way anyone who isn't incredibly naive would believe they would just "give their trade secrets" out for free, without some kind of "catch" to it, such as wording just enough to sound credible, while that the same time adding or omitting things subtly in order to "trip up" their opponents and make it backfire; meaning more potential "competitors or rivals" out of the race, it's not like they're particularly known for being "altruistic" individuals.

Read Ray Dalio, Leaders Eat Last by Simon Sinek, or Meditations on Violence by Sgt. Rory Miller for a discussion of "power" that renders this dreck obsolete, just to name one serious author on the subject for people above a 6th grade reading level.

If the show was an actual discussion of power it wouldn't sell, nor would anyone seeking to understand the power in a more serious way be naive and childish enough to think that a trash TV show would just 'give it way for free, because they're nice guys and gals", without any "catch" or something... like Mephisto to Faust...

But hey, some people believe spam emails sent to them by "Nigerian princes" as a well, so I suppose there really are people dumb, ugly, and naive enough to believe a trash TV show is actually a "how-to" guide, lmao

My knowledge of this subject is a bit sketchy, but if I recall from Plato and Aristotle:

Plato was not a big fan of rhetoric at all (I believe this was the case with Socrates as well), and believed it to be a tool by "sophists" to manipulate people or prey on gullibility. (e.x. compared to Dialect).

Aristotle had a less negative opinion of rhetoric, and viewed it as just a "tool", not something bad or good, other than what it's used for; and believed that in marketing a view or opinion to the masses, that some level of rhetoric might be needed for the emotional or sensational appeal, since people, in practice do not always think "rationally" and sometimes respond to emotional rhetoric over rational dialect.

Nihilism is just for ugly people to justify wallowing in their ugliness, beastliness, and fertility, like a swine licking its own dung, and has always been around in some form or another, and easily debunked or refuted..

Pretty much every "nihilistic" idea in the recent discourse, whether Machiavelli or his plagiarist Saul Alinsky, is just a rip-off or unoriginal reincarnation of dumb ideas as old as Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic, and no even remotely sane person actually believes that ugly old bunk in real life, most or just so sheltered, hapless, and childish that they actually think it's ever been 'edgy' to begin with, as opposed to just smelly, ugly, and inferior, like a botched experiment crawling out of Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory.

Even the entire so-called "red people" philosophy which is a minor internet sensation is just a poor man's version of Nietzche, who based on the fact that he died in a state of insanity, makes his claims to "overman-hood" quite a bit questionable.

(Thankfully the fact that pop nihilism or existentialism was a passing fad even in Nietzche's outdated time, shows that any modern nihilism fad is likewise just a whim, soon to go out of style like Disco, and for the better of the good, true, beautiful people, no less).

"Sefl love" is a very ambiguous term which can mean whatever one wants it to.

Why do people watch Mystery Science Theater 3000?

Me, I found it a good example of the "mass psychology" which trash like Game of Thrones is marketed to, such as how the "negativity bias" which is hardwired into us causes us to disproportionately associate "negativity" with "realism", even when it's as "realistic" as a Jason, Saw or Freddy Krueger Move.

Game of Thrones is as reliable and realistic source on the subject as a Jason Voorhes film. Didn't even bother to watch. (The same with uglier and less realistic rip-offs like "Billions").

Go watch "Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday" on repeat for 500 hours straight (or the Jerry Springer Show, for that matter) if you want a slightly more realistic and intellectually stimulating version of the entire GoT series.

It is simple and obvious demographics (below replacement birth rates by one group vs astronomic birth rates by another), and is not exactly a secret. I.e. the official statistics bureau of the German goverment admits this.
By the way, have you ever wondered, why "Mohammed" is today the most frequent name for new born boys in both the UK, France, and Sweden? How do you think that happened?
[/quote]
And this matters... why exactly?

"Most people" who go to college only have a bare minimum bachelor's degree education tailored primarily for the IQ 100 demographic to begin with; why would a demographic in regards to "most people" have any bearing on the intellectual achievements of, say a high-level scientist or inventor with an IQ of 150?

"Most people" are not computer programmers or scientists; Bill Gates is an entrepreneur who made a fortune through innovation in the computer industry; in some cases, being a "minority" demographic in one (non-mutually exclusive) area or another can potentially be an advantage or have" more influence" than being in the "majority".

I do not know what your argument is here, and neither do you apparently. India was British colony, yes, but what does that have to do with birth rates? A more relevant example would be how e.g. the population of Kosovo turned from Greek Orthodox to muslim. Hint: Not by mass conversion.

Your point fails, and defining the "nation" on the basis of ethnic traits, based solely on one of potentially infinite ways of "framing" or measuring the population demographics on the bases of to begin with is fallacious.

Obviously, for example, "population or ethnicity" did not affect whether or not India was a "British colony:, much as how "whites" or "European people" are a "minority worldwide" anyway, compared to India and China, but this isn't automatically "bad", nor does it in anyway detract from whatever political or economic prowess Americans or Europeans are presumed to have.

The law can't force you to do any of that stuff.

Most is marketed to the 6th grade reading level, and just considered "short form" information which at most is a "poor man's" or "lazy man's substitute for reading full-length books anyway.

Much as how it's well documented that "negative" or "sensationalist" nonsense in the news sells to the lowest common denominator as cheap entertainment, while at the same time having negative social effects such as causing people to "catastrophize" and assume paranoidly that negative events disproportionately happen, in part due to the "negativity bias" hardwired into us for survivalistic reasons which tends to prevent or work against rational or intellectual thought, in favor of emotional reactions, silliness, superstitious behavior easily seen and documented in "junk food news" addicts.

Much of it is basically just the intellectual and other equivalents of the National Enquirer (e.x. reporting on every single Trump twitter post for the chagrin of superstitious people isn't "news" to begin with).

What the heck are you talking about? For better or worse, we live in nation states, and the national birthrate determines what happens to them. And yes, of course, there are differences between communities; i.e. the orthodox Jews in Israel with their massive birth rates produce the children that the secular Jews do not produce, In the same way that muslim immigrants produce the children in Europe that the native Europeans do not produce,

Which will turn Europe into an islamic continent within the century

Prove this please. What you're saying is fallacious, and it's just one of potentially many ways of measuring or framing demographics and trends.

If your equating birth rates with turning into an "Islamic" or any other continent, this is fallacious, for example, India used to be a "British" territory, despite people of Indian descent being the "majority" demographic.

Much as how high-level scientists or engineers, or people with such as level of intelligence (e.x. Bill Gates) are a statistical "minority" as well, but this hasn't stopped you from using or buying their computers.

So you haven't substantiated your conclusion, much as the reality is that in times past where infant mortality rate was higher than today, people tended to have more children, partly for this or other pragmatic reasons.

That's a good point; the fact that people have to demonstrate more responsibility or competence to get a driver's license than to have a child is somewhat disturbing.

It is a math question. It does not very long, and obviously society is drastically impacted long before the whole population actually "disappears". You can play around with an online population calculator like this, if you want: http://ilkkah.com/population-calculator/ — Nobeernolife

Either give me an estimate on how long, or please stop wasting time.

Plus this is assuming that it continues that way ad infinitum, when in reality that hasn't been the case historically.

Much as how "nationwide" or "global" population is just one of many ways of measuring things, and obviously doesn't take into account population within the context of smaller communities, and so on and so forth.

The reality is that the vast majority of purchase and expenditures in 1st world nations are already above and beyond the purely "material", but fall into the category of "higher mental wants", such as houses, automobiles, education, internet access, etc etc.

As an example, if we use the Sentinelese tribe as a frame of reference, who live as close to nature as supposedly possible using presumably Stone Age technology, it's easy to demonstrate that material needs (other than perhaps in "absolute poverty scenarios" such as 3rd world countries racked by fame and warfare), material needs are at the very bottom of the hierarchy, with most people's "basic material needs" in 1st world countries already being more than met.

Hence why "relative poverty" is something of an illusion or myth, since it isn't based on accounting or what the money or possessions actually add up to or equate to, but is rather solely based on arbitrary income statistics or comparison of fixed salaries or amounts in a "vacuum".

You can look up the birth rates, for example 1.3 in Italy and 1.5 in Japan. This and the accompanying problems are very real.
[/quote]
And... how long would that take for the population to "disappear", assuming that it stays fixed at this rate and never fluctuates?

As I said, demography is destiny.

Still dodging the point as ever, I see?

What on earth makes you think they'll be closed down indefinitely?

Couple of generations, depending on how low the birthrate actually is, You really should familiarize yourself with some basic demographic facts.
[/quote]
How low "is" the birthrate actually, and likely to fluctuate.

You're talking about fantasy scenarios which simply aren't.

But problems begin way before that, with a decreasing young population having to support an increasing old population. Pension and medical systems get stretched to the breaking point. This is a very real life pressing concern in i,e, Italy and Japan. You seem to be blissfully unaware of that

And? How does that fit into the entire spectrum of spending, in theory and In practice?

How long will it actually take, in theory, for the population of China, India, Europe, etc to disappear, assuming that it "stays" at whatever birth rate your referencing ad infinitum, and doesn't fluctuate at all, which I believe is very unlikely to happen in practice, as opposed to abstract theory.