Kksd74628

@Someone here You're thinking this from biased lens and wrong mindset. Because for you life has seemed to be suffering, you don't want that to anyone, but remember that to person whose life has been incredibly beautiful having children would just be giving gift. Also wouldn't you want to have awesome sex if that'd cost a little pain? You're looking life from bad perspective, because it shouldn't be about minimizing suffering, but increasing love and happiness. As I said, fix your life before trying to rationalize deep moral questions, because otherwise you'd come to wrong conclusions.

@Someone here What's the difference?

@Someone here We are still talking about different things. I am trying to show that personal morals are the most important things in your life and you're talking about principles that majority of people agreed just to make society more stable. Also what I am trying to show is that you shouldn't do things just because majority of people said so, because that way you'd make society your new god which is telling you what you should do. That's the reason why you should be your own moral king which guides you personally to better life.

@Someone here Your highest values come from inside. Those are the things you'll find when you do enough contemplation about why I do anything at all. You don't maybe have any consequences that come after you die, because actually those come even earlier while you live. The reason why you don't rape, lie or steal shouldn't be because you don't want to be a dick, but because those aren't aligned with your values and therefore you aren't playing the game that you set for yourself optimally. So yeah morality makes sense without god if you know what you want and you want to stay on track.

@Someone here You are confucing morality and good values. Acting moral is doing or not doing whatever is required to hit your values and values are just things you want to have. Even drinking itself is not that bad thing, but doing too much of it that your health which should be a high value of yours suffers because of that. Because society as a whole and individual people have different goals and values there are also two sets of moral principles. What you should be concernced are just your own goals and principles to achieve those.

@Someone here So basically that person can't think in long term and rules were the only thing that kept him in correct path. Btw sex is not bad thing.

@Someone here Function of rules is to support the learning process of high level behaviours.

@Someone here You didn't stay in the subject. Original point I answered to was that we can't live without laws as a society still for long time.

@Julian gabriel I'd say that boredom is survival mechanism to make us do something which we deep down think is more useful. When we don't "have" to do anything we have finally arrived to peace, present moment. That's why being fulfiled is requirement to some extent to be really happy just existing here and now. By understanding that one should see that seeking for material success is important part of life from the perspective of spirituality and your life overall. Don't fall into trap of only doing spirituality and giving your success based life away.

@Someone here Not even close bro

@zurew Don't you understand that everyone can't possible have their own definitions or it'd be like we all have different words. When we are talking with specific words we expect that we're also pointing towards the same general idea. You're too locked in thinking about dictionary definition when in case what I'm talking about is just sharing definition for the sake of better communication. Because we already agree that we need to know the definitions that the other one uses, would it be easier just to have the same ones in the beginning which means agreeing on basic definitions.

If we really want to think about this thing holistically we have to go step by step to analyze everything which is important. To think holistically means to think what is best decision as a whole. So we have to understand that the decision we are going to pick has negative and positive components within it, but those negative things don't necessarily make the whole thing bad, because it's kind of compromise between different perspectives. So in order to gain better outcome as a big picture we have some trade-offs, but that's natural, okay and inevitable. For example if you say that trading someone's rights, happiness or life for resources is bad, you are locking yourself, because your biases, selfishness and assumptions won't let you think about this thing correctly. Where did that assumption that you can't trade someone's rights, happiness or life for higher good came from? It feels bad, because you wouldn't want it to happen to you, but the thing is that we are already doing that and it's all fine. Laws take rights from you so the system works better and also some soldiers are forced to go to war to lose life for greater good. This can be very hard emotionally, but in order to understand this thing it's essential to drop your emotions away. So first thing that needs to be accepted is that it's actually okay to trade people to more love overall. Actually even killing human being is okay, if that leads to more love. This may sound like I am very cold, but that's not the thing. I am just being extremely rational just to be more loving overall. For example if some person is too dangerous for other people and is using lot of resources that could save lot more people and give more love to others, why not kill him/her if (s)he isn't learning? What is the point of giving any kind of penalty anyways? So the person could learn that what (s)he did was not acceptable. If we give life sentence to someone then the first principle already fails. So what is the point of keeping him/her in prison, but to make him/her suffer. Killing him/her would be even in favour for him/her. Everyone would benefit out of this decision. Before you say that his/her friends and family members wouldn't want him/her to die, you have to understand that if those loved him/her they would accept that it was best thing to happen to him/her anyways. So @Leo Gura was right about this thing. It almost felt like people arguing against him weren't even in the same page with him. If someone has something to say about this then comment under this thread, but keep it logical and I'll answer to all of your questions, but don't start personal attacks towards others. I understand that this thing is very nuanced and needs to be explained in depth so it really clicks. We are trying to build bridge between perspectives so the aim is to understand each other so try to stay charp and don't get triggered. Thanks!!! With love and wisdom -joNi-

@Danioover9000 Words are not tools to signal which is good or bad, but tool to convey that. Because you explained why people share definitions with their "allies" in politics and I thought that this aligned with what I said about that having "own definitions" is just about sharing ideology in terms that you use.

@zurew Just answer to the question and we can move further in this discussion; would calling neo-nazi as a nazi be wrong? Also I agree that I can't know the definition for all things and especially in history field I am not that great. When you answer to that question we can continue, thanks.

@zurew Actually I looked finnish dictionary and writed that definition here about communist, but whatever. If you want one more chance, I can give it to you. Would calling neo-nazi as a nazi be wrong?

@zurew Because it's not about disagreeing, but the thing I am talking about should be foundation of any reasonable conversation. In what I am talking about there shouldn't be opinions, because it's not opinion based question even. I can be extremely humble, but there's time for everything in life. What should I even be humble about now :D? If you guys wanna play in a world where you have to ask definitions for everything and nothing makes sense anymore then go and have a party, but I am not joining. I prefer living in a world where we can at least talk and understand each others.

@Tahuti That something is derivative doesn't make it the same thing than the original, right? That's why we have 2 words and that's why they mean different things. I don't know how should I perceive people who were arguing with me after this conversation, because I thought this was the basics of the basics. Like using word differently that it used be used doesn't magically expand the word to mean different things. That just shows that some people are more and some less educated about how well they use their words.

@Carl-Richard So you don't see any problem teaching your daughter that piece of paper is metal?

@Carl-Richard So you don't think that calling person who is neo-nazi as a nazi is wrong?

@Carl-Richard So all that I am left right now is person who doesn't know the difference between words neo-nazi and nazi, because he thinks that different words can point towards same thing if some person who speaks loosely and wrongly in the streets says so. It's called informal talking for a reason, because it isn't formal. If you can't see how calling neo-nazi as a nazi isn't the most truthful thing then I can't continue this conversation. That is the step 1 which needs to be accepted, because if you're honest you'd agree with that claim.

@Carl-Richard We are circling around the subject, but even if majority people answer in the streets that 1+1 equals 3 it doesn't change the fact that it is 2.

@Carl-Richard You could call him neo-nazi, but calling him nazi would be a mistake. And yeah asking yes/no question would be okay if you let the other one respond, but usually people won't and that's why i'd careful in those situations.

@Carl-Richard Good principle is that whenever one needs to ask yes/no question something is already wrong in the conversation. It's forcing someone to give opinion without giving possibility to defend or explain it. Destiny was right on his take that definitions by themself aren't the most important thing and are just tools to play with. The most important thing is to see other one's worldview and talk about it instead. Destiny said many times that the person they were talking about isn't nazi by dictionary definition. I think that's enough and we don't need any other definitions to this conversation.

@Carl-Richard Okay, then I agree with everything that everyone said here, because yeah making definitions more specific and nuanced is good thing. What I was agruing against was ideologizing words with your worldviews and actually that was the topic of the original Destiny versus MrGirl video as well so I thought we were talking about this instead, but yeah. This is also good thing to understand. Of course if we are talking about just making definitions more specific then everyone who understands what we are talking about should agree with the definitions. So I was right in my statement that if someone disagrees with your definition that you tried to make as specific as possible then (s)he's wrong.

@Scholar Boom, the first who understood the point.