Are white people getting their just desserts?

Post Reply New Topic

When you're talking about wiping out the human race, nature in its infinite wisdom can take care of that in its own time. People with a God-Complex who think they have a right to take those matters into their own hands, and whatever followers included, are a bunch of ass-holes. It's as simple as that.

I don't care if you care about jealousy issues. I do so there!! !

Out of curiousity, where do you get that he has a God-Complex from?

The question is, is being wrong, neccesarily wrong?

In my case, I would care about the results of someone being wrong, if being wrong gives positive good results, then I believe I would accept it, otherwise I wouldn't.

I guess practicing or using agriculture means you have a God complex

You know, nature didn't intend for all those crops to become so abundant

I should add that technological development has rapidly outpaced the blind hand of nature, casting some doubt on its "infinite wisdom"



I don't take stock in this utilitarian view

http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... elief.html

Being wrong when you know better is wrong, period

Yes, I acknowledge that neither of those are good nor healthy, I can say some of us here (members) may fall into some of that, being one reason to be here, in my case, that is one of the reasons I joined this site, and it is one of some ways to escape the real world.

I'd argue that believing that things is wrong is wrong, and that you know better, as noted by your statement once that ethics did not exist. Therefore that statement by you is self-refuting, as the only sense of "wrong" in such a thing is the moral sense, and thus the statement is nonsense.

Also, I would argue that this statement: "And no one man's belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone." is under-analyzed, as it can easily lead to a totalitarianism on all levels, as nothing a man does concerns them alone if even a private belief is not given that level of freedom. I am not likely to read much further than that statement though as if ethics is unsupported, then the principles within the essay are self-refuting. And, the notion of ethics, as found in that statement reflects a notion of the world that I would tend to argue very strongly against.

Alright, I'm willing to acknowledge a very limited subset of ethics, but only as far as it concerns knowledge and reasoning.

Ok, and why are these things ethical? How can they be ethical? What is ethical? How can an "ought" even exist? If I resist an ought, I am called evil, but what does that mean? If I were to say "Truths are material, like vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me." Why would I be wrong? Not only that, but let us even look at the notion of knowledge. In order to know something, does that point of knowledge have to be justified? If it is unjustified it cannot be known, but if it is justified, then doesn't the justifier have to have justification? Ultimately, is an argument in the form:

1. Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge. Then P is a justified true belief.
2. The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
3. But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1.
4. But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief.
5. That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1.
6. But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2
7. But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief.
8. That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2.
9. and so on, ad infinitum.

a valid argument?

To me, the notion of both ethics and valid knowledge seem absurd.

It enables you to survive and even dominate, which is 'good'

I share your difficulties with the idea of absolute ethical principles

Bah, survival is only good if you want to survive. Same with domination.

"For only the Strongest shall survive, and a child shall be their leader." -- Book of Farquahr, Chapter VII, Paragraph Banana, Clause Samisdat, Subclause Celery.

Well, assume you want something to survive and rule.

Even I do; I want reasoning to prevail in its purest physical form.

Why should I??? Frankly, I would prefer that nothing exist.

No suggestion here, just posing a question:

Wouldn't ceasing to exist yourself fulfill that desire? Why does your nihilism need to require that for everything else?

[edited to change 'desire' to 'require']

No, it doesn't. I desire for nothing to exist because of the other beings that do exist.