Lurker > COVxy

We've gone in circles here.

1. I asked how is it decided, what is right and wrong? What is the rule, if an objective rule exists?
2. You said "hard to say, but there must be one, why else does every culture believe murder is wrong?"
3. Following sets of posts refuted the idea that all cultures universally view murder as wrong, through war and honor killings, as examples.
4. You then say "so, I don't care if societies view fucked up shit as okay, it's still fucked up!"
5. Then you go on to say "but anyway, murder is universally regarded as wrong"

I'm left confused and without any place to go.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

You brought up the point here:
Smashingpmkns posted...

And then can you also name why almost every culture in the world agrees that murder is wrong? It's not like there was a mass meeting lol

And I was simply refuting it.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Smashingpmkns posted...

But you know what type of murder I was talking about. Just to simplify. Not war time. Why is murdering your neighbor in cold blood deemed bad? And again, your war time stuff doesn't disprove what I'm saying as I already stated that cultures or society as a whole can be wrong.

I think you're missing the point. Either way, you can find cultures where honor killings are deemed moral, for instance.

But you side stepped over the main question here, but we implicitly get to it towards the end of your post. If you can't state why certain things are right and wrong (the rules behind morality), how do you know that there are things that are objectively right or wrong?

If there is an objective morality, you have to be able to state what the objective function is!

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Smashingpmkns posted...

There are different types of murder but I assume you know what kind of murder I was speaking of and for whatever reason went straight to war lol but even then, war is immoral exclamation mark!

I'm not joking that this is often the first example used in sociology courses. You may personally think that war time killings are immoral (I don't disagree, personally), but society as a whole does not, as they are not socially sanctioned.

The point is that the act of killing another human being is not universally viewed as immoral, and thus is shitty evidence for the idea that there must be universal morals.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Smashingpmkns posted...

It's really not as easy as there claiming that there's a decider. Can you name who decided murder was wrong? And then can you also name why almost every culture in the world agrees that murder is wrong? It's not like there was a mass meeting lol Actual morality is more complex than what subjective morality makes it out to be. It's not simple zeitgeist.

Murder is not universally wrong! There's socially sanctioned killing all the time in war, in self defense, etc, etc.

This is actually one of the first examples often brought up in sociology courses to demonstrate to social constriction of morals.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Tyranthraxus posted...

Masochists do stuff to themselves and is outside the boundaries of the golden rule. Now if you're talking about sadism that is unquestionably immoral.

Sado-masochism roleplay is literally a prearranged contract and is already compliant with the golden rule.

My main point was to show an obvious contradiction to the rule, so as to imply it is not a universal. Just because you hold certain values, doesn't mean others around you will hold the same. Which is why colonization tends to be pretty fucked up.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Tyranthraxus posted...

The golden rule.

I assumed you were joking the first time. But masochists pose a particularly interesting challenge to that lol.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

So what determines what is morally right and wrong?

Like, something happens today, there must be some universal equation to determine morality, what is it? Every cost function you can think to minimize encapsulates a set of socially constructed valuations of outcomes.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The idea the ABA therapy is just trying to erase "neurodivergent" behavior is nonsense, when the gains attributed to ABA practice are things like learning to be able to communicate basic needs to those who can tend to you, gains in IQ, reduction in self harm behavior, etc, etc.

Like, yeah, if people are putting kids with mild autism through extreme aversion therapy to increase eye gaze from mildly below normal, that's fucked up, but I don't think that's an intellectually honest description of ABA therapy.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

kirbyakaZ posted...

It is though because classically, and still practiced occasionally, they use sensory punishments. I don't want to get anywhere near violating HIPPA laws, but I can tell you right now there are fucked up things that happened to many I know when they were between 3-15.

Typically punishment is used in shaping behavior only when it is more or less impossible to do so via reinforcement.

I do not think it is immoral to shape a harmful behavior away, even if it requires noxious but overall nonharmful punishments. Particularly in the cases of more severe autism where kids are often nonverbal and have repetitive and extremely harmful behaviors.

Pretty much every scientific study of ABA therapy shows that it helps.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Smashingpmkns posted...

If there weren't we wouldn't be able to assess actions in the past as we do.

I mean, it should be obvious that there's an issue here, because the view of what's moral changes over time. Unless you think that moral thinking is evolving in a direction of objective truth always, this points directly to the subjective nature of morality.

And we know prior isn't true because we've had things like prohibition. Things where something at one time was generally accepted by society, then became frowned upon, only to be accepted once again.

Just like how marijuana use became socially sanctioned as an indirect way of punishing particular groups, and then has had a large progressive movement alleviating it.

Like, idk how anyone can live as an adult and believe that morals are anything other than socially constructed.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ABA therapy should not be controversial.

I have serious doubts that this device would be particularly effective at doing anything but putting someone on high levels of stress for no fucking reason, though.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

CanuckCowboy posted...

No.

He was a street fighter yes. Jorge masvidal was a Kimbo protg and also fought. Kimbo was never involved with bum fights. He got into street fighting and uploading cause he was a security guard for reality kings

Huh, interesting. Maybe it was just something people said and I took for truth. Whoops.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

CanuckCowboy posted...

Kimbo never had anything to do with bum fights dude.

Pretty sure he was recorded on Bum Fights before being recruited to UFC or something.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I use it. Just kind to normalize neutral terms for significant others, so nobody needs to be spectacle.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

dodgefan91 posted...

its really not. Theres more info than ever about how to invest wisely. As long as youre planning long term and not just yoloing on wall street bets stocks, anyone with at least some disposable income can decide to invest instead of splurging on consumer goods.

...you can't pretend like return doesn't depend on amount of initial investment lmao.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Tyranthraxus posted...

Objective morality = the golden rule

It transcends even gods

Treat everyone like a 1.618?

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Idk how anyone could claim objective morality in the absence of religion. So the only morality that exists is the perception of morality, and if that perception changes over time, then the only thing we know of as morality changes over time.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

DuranOfForcena posted...

i am thoroughly unimpressed

Go replay Diablo II.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

This dude is comically terrible. Seems like an SNL skit.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Hop103 posted...

Only the name is bad in this case (also misleading, then there's the fact I'm just sick of rhetoric in general), the policy is fine, screw the far left.

Having a right-wing initiative to actively monitor and suppress academic research is bad.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Seems really bad.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Balrog0 posted...

Again, they couldn't even get rid of Obamacare after campaigning against it for over a decade

But maybe it being around for over a decade and having their constituency heavily depend on it had something to do with that?

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Antifar posted...

My point being: if Mitch McConnell doesn't think getting rid of the filibuster would help Republicans, whose agenda is unpopular and whose elected officials show no real interest in governing, why should you?

Something can be bad for both Republican and Democratic legislation goals at the same time. If nobody's legislation can last longer than the time it takes congress to shift majorities, seems like absolutely no legislation will stick around. I presume the reason it works at the state level is that the tides don't shift nearly as often?

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Antifar posted...

I agree. So why do you think Mitch McConnell didn't get rid of the filibuster when he had the power to do so in 2017?

Because it's probably bad for both parties, because both rely on it when in minority control?

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Antifar posted...

None of our 50 state governments have a supermajority requirement for regular legislation, nor do any other major countries. All the filibuster accomplishes is making our federal government sclerotic, unable to pass any legislation on climate change, gun control, or minimum wage, at a time when the public overwhelmingly wants action on these issues. Republicans are entirely comfortable with that status quo; Democrats shouldn't be.

Other countries don't have government parties so broken that they literally are willing to break the government by repealing the previous guy's legislation out of pure spite.

Climate change regulation and health care reform need more than 8 years to actually get in place and work.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

pinky0926 posted...

Oh. Is it just "argument from ignorance"?

I don't think that quite fits.

I just call it motivated skepticism.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ElatedVenusaur posted...

The Democrats control the all three branches of government

Whoops.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

"Nerd blackface!!!"

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Weird to spend time blaming Biden for this given what was written in the OP.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Is this what you're referring to?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/politics/immigration-enforcement-biden/index.html

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is rolling out new guidelines that would curtail enforcement measures, focusing more narrowly on immigrants who pose a national security, border security or public safety risk, the agency announced Thursday.

The new guidance was prompted by an executive order signed by President Joe Biden shortly after taking office and marks a return to Obama-era immigration enforcement measures based on a priority system instead of the more aggressive approach taken under the Trump administration.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

dotsdfe posted...

Mother fucking Tenten.

Top tier design, fun abilities, likable character.

Absolutely one of the least utilized characters I've ever seen in any form of media.

I just don't see how they could have scaled summoning ninja weapons to the same level that everyone else was developing.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

COVxy posted...

That's not Drew Carey, that's Kurt Russell as Santa Clause, in the hit film The Christmas Chronicles.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

That's not Drew Carey, that's Tim Allen as Santa Clause, in the hit film The Santa Clause.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

pinky0926 posted...

A'ight but didn't you notice there were a lot of chodes in first year

Lmao.

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]