Obama cares about things other then himself. I just dont think trump cares about any one else happiness other then his own. Also carrying for ones young is somthing even sociopaths do. We see are young as an exstention of the self.
THAN AND CARING AND OUR, not then and carrying and are. I can't take anything you say seriously. Get some fucking education, your point might have validity.
Yes my grammer is bad. Saddly i have a luearning disability. So despite not being able to spell or write i got a BA in history. Im not stupid, i just struggle with writen language.
Moral reasoning is just a post hoc search for reasons to justify the judgments people have already made. When people are asked why, for certain questions, they find things morally wrong, they say they cannot think of a reason but they still think it is wrong. This has been verified by numerous studies. Moral reasoning evolved as a skill to further social cohesiveness and to further our social agendas. Even in different cultures, those with matching socioeconomic levels have the same moral reasoning. Morality cannot be entirely constructed by children based on their own understanding of harm. Thus, cultural learning must play a bigger role than the rationalists had given it. Larger and more complex brains also show more cognitive sophistication in making choices and judgments, confirming a theory of mine that larger brains are the cause of making correct choices as well as making moral judgments.
If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out truth, you’ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you. But if you think about moral reasoning as a skill we humans evolved to further our social agendas – to justify our own actions and to defend the teams we belong to – then things will make a lot more sense. Keep your eye on the intuitions, and don’t take people’s moral arguments at face value. They’re mostly post hoc constructions made up on the fly crafted to advance one or more strategic objectives (Haidt, 2012, pg XX to XXI).
There is no way to quantify morals. Who's right? Who's wrong? What one believes comes down to evolution.
Thanks for playing. You’re too stupid to be considered human and certainly incapable of comprehending any conversation on any topic whatsoever. Literally no one, anywhere, who is given any measure of serious thought, believes that morality is subjective.
The four fundamental forces of physics are objectively measured as what they are. They are immutable constants. From them, all physical reality is defined and described. Said physical reality is consistently measurable, and is thus objective in its format and design. Taken to its conclusion, we can state unequivocally: “Some actions are ALWAYS good. Some actions are ALWAYS bad.”
Thus morality is objective.
they say they cannot think of a reason but they still think it is wrong.
certainly incapable of comprehending any conversation on any topic whatsoever.
Wrong.
Literally no one, anywhere, who is given any measure of serious thought, believes that morality is subjective.
Literally wrong. I've just provided evidence.
Taken to its conclusion, we can state unequivocally: “Some actions are ALWAYS good. Some actions are ALWAYS bad.”
Thus morality is objective.
Doesn't follow. You can't define "good" or "bad". 1) Populations evolved differently in comparison to others based on different environmental selection pressures. Surely, since there are innate differences in the brain, then there will be differences in morality and moral reasoning between and within populations. Therefore, morality is subjective. This has been empirically verified. People have different moral views depending on culture (which is an expression of genetics). People cannot logically reason "why" they fell some way, it's just their intuition telling them they're wrong.
Anecdotes are not fact.
Empirically tested. Read the article.
The illusions of moral judgment. If moral reasoning is generally
a post hoc construction intended to justify automatic moral
intuitions, then our moral life is plagued by two illusions. The first
illusion can be called the wag-the-dog illusion: We believe that our
own moral judgment (the dog) is driven by our own moral reasoning
(the tail). The second illusion can be called the wag-theother-dog's-tail
illusion: In a moral argument, we expect the
successful rebuttal of an opponent's arguments to change the
opponent's mind. Such a belief is like thinking that forcing a dog's
tail to wag by moving it with your hand will make the dog happy
Incorrect. Humanity is defined by sapience, which is defined by a specific set of behaviors and level of cognitive power.
Literally wrong. I’ve just provided evidence.
Read it again
no one, anywhere, who is given any measure of serious thought,
No intellectual in human history has been a moral relativist.
Doesn't follow. You can’t define "good" or "bad".
You can, and I just did. Once again, as a moral relativist, you can never comprehend any conversation of any objective weight. It is impossible for you to comprehend the fundamental nature of reality.
1) Populations evolved differently in comparison to others based on different environmental selection pressures.
Yep!
Surely, since there are innate differences in the brain, then there will be differences in morality and moral reasoning between and within populations.
By what metric do you define that?
This has been empirically verified.
The exact opposite is true, in fact.
People have different moral views depending on culture (which is an expression of genetics).
Nope. Morality remains objective, regardless of people’s feelings thereon.
People cannot logically reason “why” they fell some way
Utter nonsense. How can you even say that unless you know NOTHING about the processes of reasoning?
Incorrect. Humanity is defined by sapience, which is defined by a specific set of behaviors and level of cognitive power.
Again, you don't know me. You say this about me just because I think morals are subjective and not objective. There is no way to quantify morals. There is no objective morality.
No intellectual in human history has been a moral relativist.
You can, and I just did. Once again, as a moral relativist, you can never comprehend any conversation of any objective weight. It is impossible for you to comprehend the fundamental nature of reality.
Behaviors differ between and within populations. Physical and mental differences exist within populations. Therefore, it follows that there will be moral differences within and between populations as moral reasoning begins in the mind.
The exact opposite is true, in fact.
Try reading links that you're provided.
Nope. Morality remains objective, regardless of people’s feelings thereon.
Culture is an expression of genetics. There are differences in the brain between cultures which is how culture gets expressed due to evolution in that area. Since morality starts in the brain, there are differences between groups of people that were genetically isolated.
Utter nonsense. How can you even say that unless you know NOTHING about the processes of reasoning?
I do actually. I know exactly how it works. It's wrong. The social intuitonist model makes much more sense.
You say this about me just because I think morals are subjective and not objective.
Yes, you think. That doesn’t make it true.
There is no way to quantify morals. There is no objective morality.
Keep saying it. I’m sure it will magically become true.
Which animal is “good" or "bad"?
Not relevant to the discussion.
Behaviors differ between and within populations. Physical and mental differences exist within populations. Therefore, it follows that there will be moral differences within and between populations as moral reasoning begins in the mind.
It doesn’t follow. Morality exists as an immutable constant, by the definitions previously presented. That actions within a society deviate from that morality does not make the morality itself mutable.
Try reading links that you’re provided.
We’ve already proven the links wrong.
The social intuitonist model makes much more sense.
Once again, we return to the flawed marxist thought that the “Individual” is the atom of a society. If you do not already know the reasons that the anecdote therein is false, we return to my original statement: you are incapable of having any conversation on the topic as you do not believe something which is unquestionably true.
Stop posting disparaging topics or comments. If you seek truth and justice and not just another conspiracy to loom over for the next 50 years motivate people to keep pushing back. If Trump starts to slip we start march to the capitol. This is fuel to fire our motivations for a free world.
Is this r conspiracy or r the donald? Do people here know the truth about politics being a puppet show or are people feeling the high from Trump winning. When he does nothing what will you say then?
Not at all. I will admit I was wrong. You seem pretty emotionally invested here--why not think with logic instead of emotions? You don't know me nor how I think so your claim is baseless.
You’re a moral relativist, so I already know absolutely everything about you that I need to. You’re a marxist or proto-marxist, someone who thinks the “Individual” is the atom of a given society, someone who thinks that the five species widely considered ‘human’ are identical in every way and are interchangeable cogs that can be transplanted from one location to another with identical operation. You are, by definition, a liberal, and from that is derived the rest of your ideological standing.
You’re a marxist or proto-marxist, someone who thinks the “Individual” is the atom of a given society, someone who thinks that the five species widely considered ‘human’ are identical in every way and are interchangeable cogs that can be transplanted from one location to another with identical operation. You are, by definition, a liberal, and from that is derived the rest of your ideological standing.
Me, a Marxist? Funniest thing I've ever heard. I'm so far right from Marxists it's not even funny. Morality evolved as an in-group behavior to help the tribe survive better.
someone who thinks that the five species widely considered ‘human’ are identical in every way and are interchangeable cogs that can be transplanted from one location to another with identical operation
What's funny here is that with you thinking that morality does and should be the same across the planet means that you think everyone should "think and 'morally reason' the same".
You are a moral relativist. You cannot possibly be far from marxists.
I am extremely right-wing. I'm no where near Marxism.
Explain how 1. it is not and 2. it should not be.
Explain how? By seeing how peoples differ in behavior and culture across the planet. Person A thinks what they do is wrong. Person B says they are right in what they do. Society A thinks this is right, Society B thinks that's wrong and doesn't do it.
Some Asian countries eat dogs, we look at it as disgusting but to them it's just another meal. Are they "wrong" in eating dogs? Or is it just a way to survive. The point of morality's evolution was to better help the gene survive. Go read Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" and come back to me.
No, does.
Everyone doesn't morally reason the same.
If everyone morally reasoned the same then there would be no differences in so-called "moral behaviors" if this were true. Moral reasoning is not the same between peoples. Therefore the differences between peoples come down to evolution. Since culture is genetic, then evolutionary selection pressures occurred and they responded by evolving differing physical and mental traits. Since morality begins in the brain and there are brain differences between peoples, morality is subjective and not objective.
You are a moral relativist. You are definitionally a liberal.
Moral relativism is definitionally left-wing. It is the FOUNDATION of liberal thought.
By seeing how peoples differ in behavior and culture across the planet.
Differences in behavior ≠ differences in morality. The sky is still blue regardless of if someone else calls it green.
Some Asian countries eat dogs, we look at it as disgusting but to them it's just another meal. Are they “wrong" in eating dogs?
That has nothing to do with morality.
If everyone morally reasoned the same then there would be no differences in so-called “moral behaviors" if this were true.
That’s correct. There is no difference in moral behaviors. Morality is objective. That people act in contradiction to that which is objectively morally good DOES NOT MEAN that morality itself has changed. You’re literally falling for a fucking appeal to majority.
Since culture is genetic, then evolutionary selection pressures occurred and they responded by evolving differing physical and mental traits.
Moral relativism is definitionally left-wing. It is the FOUNDATION of liberal thought.
I'm extremely far-right. Not a liberal.
Differences in behavior ≠ differences in morality. The sky is still blue regardless of if someone else calls it green.
Good one. Again, since evolution occurred differently for different people, there will be moral differences between them, and this has been empirically verified, which if you'd have read the links you were provided you'd see that.
That has nothing to do with morality.
It's a moral question. Are Asian people in Asian countries who consume dogs "wrong" in what they do?
That people act in contradiction to that which is objectively morally good DOES NOT MEAN that morality itself has changed. You’re literally falling for a fucking appeal to majority.
Moral reasoning is just a post hoc search for reasons to justify the judgments people have already made. People search for reasons AFTER they already have done them in justification for their actions.
"Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it ok for them to make love?"
If you're like most people, your response is "absolutely not," but you'll find it more difficult than you think to come up with a justification. "Genetic defects from inbreeding." Yes, but they were using two forms of birth control. (And in the vanishingly small chance of pregnancy, Julie can get an abortion.) "It will mess them up emotionally." On the contrary, they enjoyed the act and it brought them closer together. "It's illegal." Not in France. "It's disgusting." For you, maybe, but not for them (obviously). Do you really want to say that private acts are morally wrong just because a lot of people find those acts disgusting? And so on.
Repeating it doesn’t make it true. You’re extremely far left, by your own admission.
Again, since evolution occurred differently for different people, there will be moral differences between them
Already proven false.
and this has been empirically verified
Already proven false.
It's a moral question. Are Asian people in Asian countries who consume dogs “wrong" in what they do?
That has nothing to do with morality. I repeat it because you don’t comprehend it.
Search for Haidt’s paper in full to read his paper in its entirety.
See, I’ve already read it and countless others like it. YOU’RE STILL FUCKING WRONG. The all-powerful “Individual” is NOT THE ATOM OF SOCIETY.
Differences in the brain mean differences in morality. It’s not quantifiable.
THEN HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY CLAIM TO KNOW THAT THE DIFFERENCES EXIST, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC?! “Difference” is, BY DEFINITION, QUANTIFIABLE. Otherwise YOU DON’T KNOW THEY’RE DIFFERENT. I repeat my initial statement: YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER DUE TO YOUR PREEXISTING (FALSE) BELIEFS.
41 comments
6 WeirdAlYankodick 2016-11-09
Yeah, how's all that change Obama promised working out for you?
7 SearcingForTruth 2016-11-09
Exactly this. People who say that Trump is different and he'll do this or that don't realize that he's Obama hope and change 2.0 without saying it.
1 acosmicbreath 2016-11-09
But....I never supported or trusted Obama. I knew he wasn't going to bring a positive change and so did a lot of other people.
0 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Are you really pretending to be this stupid?
1 WeirdAlYankodick 2016-11-09
No, I really am that stupid. As are you.
-1 fisheystick 2016-11-09
The difference is Obama has morals
8 WeirdAlYankodick 2016-11-09
EVERYONE has morals, they're just different. What morals does Obama have exactly? To do what THEY say so his wife and daughters stay alive.
1 fisheystick 2016-11-09
Obama cares about things other then himself. I just dont think trump cares about any one else happiness other then his own. Also carrying for ones young is somthing even sociopaths do. We see are young as an exstention of the self.
2 WeirdAlYankodick 2016-11-09
THAN AND CARING AND OUR, not then and carrying and are. I can't take anything you say seriously. Get some fucking education, your point might have validity.
3 fisheystick 2016-11-09
Yes my grammer is bad. Saddly i have a luearning disability. So despite not being able to spell or write i got a BA in history. Im not stupid, i just struggle with writen language.
0 WeirdAlYankodick 2016-11-09
Trump College?
2 fisheystick 2016-11-09
Lakehead University in canada
0 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
WRONG. Morality is objective.
4 SearcingForTruth 2016-11-09
Morality is subjective.
Moral reasoning is just a post hoc search for reasons to justify the judgments people have already made. When people are asked why, for certain questions, they find things morally wrong, they say they cannot think of a reason but they still think it is wrong. This has been verified by numerous studies. Moral reasoning evolved as a skill to further social cohesiveness and to further our social agendas. Even in different cultures, those with matching socioeconomic levels have the same moral reasoning. Morality cannot be entirely constructed by children based on their own understanding of harm. Thus, cultural learning must play a bigger role than the rationalists had given it. Larger and more complex brains also show more cognitive sophistication in making choices and judgments, confirming a theory of mine that larger brains are the cause of making correct choices as well as making moral judgments.
There is no way to quantify morals. Who's right? Who's wrong? What one believes comes down to evolution.
0 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Thanks for playing. You’re too stupid to be considered human and certainly incapable of comprehending any conversation on any topic whatsoever. Literally no one, anywhere, who is given any measure of serious thought, believes that morality is subjective.
The four fundamental forces of physics are objectively measured as what they are. They are immutable constants. From them, all physical reality is defined and described. Said physical reality is consistently measurable, and is thus objective in its format and design. Taken to its conclusion, we can state unequivocally: “Some actions are ALWAYS good. Some actions are ALWAYS bad.”
Thus morality is objective.
Anecdotes are not fact.
1 SearcingForTruth 2016-11-09
Baseless character attack.
Wrong.
Literally wrong. I've just provided evidence.
Doesn't follow. You can't define "good" or "bad". 1) Populations evolved differently in comparison to others based on different environmental selection pressures. Surely, since there are innate differences in the brain, then there will be differences in morality and moral reasoning between and within populations. Therefore, morality is subjective. This has been empirically verified. People have different moral views depending on culture (which is an expression of genetics). People cannot logically reason "why" they fell some way, it's just their intuition telling them they're wrong.
Empirically tested. Read the article.
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/LP_Haidt.pdf
Try reading an article and reading in to new information before commenting.
1 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Incorrect. Humanity is defined by sapience, which is defined by a specific set of behaviors and level of cognitive power.
Read it again
No intellectual in human history has been a moral relativist.
You can, and I just did. Once again, as a moral relativist, you can never comprehend any conversation of any objective weight. It is impossible for you to comprehend the fundamental nature of reality.
Yep!
By what metric do you define that?
The exact opposite is true, in fact.
Nope. Morality remains objective, regardless of people’s feelings thereon.
Utter nonsense. How can you even say that unless you know NOTHING about the processes of reasoning?
0 SearcingForTruth 2016-11-09
Again, you don't know me. You say this about me just because I think morals are subjective and not objective. There is no way to quantify morals. There is no objective morality.
Try reading something on the matter.
Which animal is "good" or "bad"? It's like saying there's progress to evolution.
By knowing and understanding how evolution works.
Behaviors differ between and within populations. Physical and mental differences exist within populations. Therefore, it follows that there will be moral differences within and between populations as moral reasoning begins in the mind.
Try reading links that you're provided.
Culture is an expression of genetics. There are differences in the brain between cultures which is how culture gets expressed due to evolution in that area. Since morality starts in the brain, there are differences between groups of people that were genetically isolated.
I do actually. I know exactly how it works. It's wrong. The social intuitonist model makes much more sense.
0 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Already replied to that statement.
Yes, you think. That doesn’t make it true.
Keep saying it. I’m sure it will magically become true.
Not relevant to the discussion.
It doesn’t follow. Morality exists as an immutable constant, by the definitions previously presented. That actions within a society deviate from that morality does not make the morality itself mutable.
We’ve already proven the links wrong.
Once again, we return to the flawed marxist thought that the “Individual” is the atom of a society. If you do not already know the reasons that the anecdote therein is false, we return to my original statement: you are incapable of having any conversation on the topic as you do not believe something which is unquestionably true.
0 WeirdAlYankodick 2016-11-09
What do you mean wrong? All people don't have morals? Yes they do, they're just different from yours cunt!
1 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Do you know what words mean?
Thanks for asserting something that no one questioned.
Morality is objective. They cannot have a different ‘good’.
Spectacular argument.
0 WeirdAlYankodick 2016-11-09
I love cunt.
1 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Are you really pretending to be this stupid?
2 j0rd4n_w0rk 2016-11-09
He probably will build a bunch of shit because he can personally profit from it.
1 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Prove it.
1 TheTopSnek 2016-11-09
Do you really think Congress, Senate and the ENTIRE LIBERAL VOTER POOL won't look at every single move from Donald?
Every single move he makes will be a headline "Trump will directly benefit from X and Y proposals". It won't happen.
1 no1113 2016-11-09
Exactly this.
Or, perhaps, the OP heading should have read:
Worry, people. Nothing is really going to change.
1 CountryMac 2016-11-09
Stop posting disparaging topics or comments. If you seek truth and justice and not just another conspiracy to loom over for the next 50 years motivate people to keep pushing back. If Trump starts to slip we start march to the capitol. This is fuel to fire our motivations for a free world.
-4 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Why not go somewhere that your shit will actually be believed?
6 SearcingForTruth 2016-11-09
Is this r conspiracy or r the donald? Do people here know the truth about politics being a puppet show or are people feeling the high from Trump winning. When he does nothing what will you say then?
1 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
When he blows you the fuck out, you’ll crawl back into your hole and impotently murmur about how you were magically “right all along”.
1 SearcingForTruth 2016-11-09
Not at all. I will admit I was wrong. You seem pretty emotionally invested here--why not think with logic instead of emotions? You don't know me nor how I think so your claim is baseless.
1 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
You’re a moral relativist, so I already know absolutely everything about you that I need to. You’re a marxist or proto-marxist, someone who thinks the “Individual” is the atom of a given society, someone who thinks that the five species widely considered ‘human’ are identical in every way and are interchangeable cogs that can be transplanted from one location to another with identical operation. You are, by definition, a liberal, and from that is derived the rest of your ideological standing.
0 SearcingForTruth 2016-11-09
Me, a Marxist? Funniest thing I've ever heard. I'm so far right from Marxists it's not even funny. Morality evolved as an in-group behavior to help the tribe survive better.
What's funny here is that with you thinking that morality does and should be the same across the planet means that you think everyone should "think and 'morally reason' the same".
I am not a liberal.
0 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
You are a moral relativist. You cannot possibly be far from marxists.
Explain how 1. it is not and 2. it should not be.
No, does.
You are a moral relativist. You are definitionally a liberal.
0 SearcingForTruth 2016-11-09
I am extremely right-wing. I'm no where near Marxism.
Explain how? By seeing how peoples differ in behavior and culture across the planet. Person A thinks what they do is wrong. Person B says they are right in what they do. Society A thinks this is right, Society B thinks that's wrong and doesn't do it.
Some Asian countries eat dogs, we look at it as disgusting but to them it's just another meal. Are they "wrong" in eating dogs? Or is it just a way to survive. The point of morality's evolution was to better help the gene survive. Go read Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" and come back to me.
Everyone doesn't morally reason the same.
If everyone morally reasoned the same then there would be no differences in so-called "moral behaviors" if this were true. Moral reasoning is not the same between peoples. Therefore the differences between peoples come down to evolution. Since culture is genetic, then evolutionary selection pressures occurred and they responded by evolving differing physical and mental traits. Since morality begins in the brain and there are brain differences between peoples, morality is subjective and not objective.
Not a liberal at all.
1 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Moral relativism is definitionally left-wing. It is the FOUNDATION of liberal thought.
Differences in behavior ≠ differences in morality. The sky is still blue regardless of if someone else calls it green.
That has nothing to do with morality.
That’s correct. There is no difference in moral behaviors. Morality is objective. That people act in contradiction to that which is objectively morally good DOES NOT MEAN that morality itself has changed. You’re literally falling for a fucking appeal to majority.
Difference in behavior ≠ difference in morality.
0 SearcingForTruth 2016-11-09
I'm extremely far-right. Not a liberal.
Good one. Again, since evolution occurred differently for different people, there will be moral differences between them, and this has been empirically verified, which if you'd have read the links you were provided you'd see that.
It's a moral question. Are Asian people in Asian countries who consume dogs "wrong" in what they do?
Moral reasoning is just a post hoc search for reasons to justify the judgments people have already made. People search for reasons AFTER they already have done them in justification for their actions.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200804/what-s-the-matter-little-brothersister-action
Search for Haidt's paper in full to read his paper in its entirety.
Differences in the brain mean differences in morality. It's not quantifiable.
1 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Repeating it doesn’t make it true. You’re extremely far left, by your own admission.
Already proven false.
Already proven false.
That has nothing to do with morality. I repeat it because you don’t comprehend it.
See, I’ve already read it and countless others like it. YOU’RE STILL FUCKING WRONG. The all-powerful “Individual” is NOT THE ATOM OF SOCIETY.
THEN HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY CLAIM TO KNOW THAT THE DIFFERENCES EXIST, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC?! “Difference” is, BY DEFINITION, QUANTIFIABLE. Otherwise YOU DON’T KNOW THEY’RE DIFFERENT. I repeat my initial statement: YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER DUE TO YOUR PREEXISTING (FALSE) BELIEFS.
1 TheTopSnek 2016-11-09
Do you really think that the presidents aren't controlled by companies? Some are more (Obama, Bush), some are less (Reagan).
Look at the collusion between the DNC and CITIBANK APPOINTING PEOPLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT. It's real.
1 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-09
Yes, since that’s fucking nonsense.
Look at who owns Citibank.