Right Wing Discussion Thread the Third

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

I just want to be backed against a gentle, yet forceful waifu to "encourage" my compliance.

To quote a popular song from my senior year of high school that one of my best friends continuously repeated regardless of context: "Sticks and stones can break my bones but whips and chains excite me."

Rihanna's ancestors didn't think that way.

[Jumalariik]

Actually nobody is amoral unless they have some form of divergence from regular psychology. People who are not psychopaths differentiate some form of moral code.

Amoralism can also be defined as the rejection of morals for non-moral reasons. If I rejected morals 'because they are bad', THEN I wouldn't be amoral.

No. You make moral judgments unless you're a psychopath. I can't know wether you are or not. You may say "I am amoral," and in an intellectual sense this may true and possible to rationalize, but in a practical sense, short of one of the dark triad, there is no reality to this claim.

[Nusaresa]

"Everything revolves around your dick. Yes ladies, that counts for you too."

Haha I don't know why people give him any interest. He just says "all you think about is sex. You don't know about it, but you do."
In a way, it's the left-wing style of argument where one takes an unprovable idea and says it like it's absolute fact, where if you have enough critical thinking™ you can see it.

New Rule to Drinking Game: Calling something one doesn't like nor understands leftist when there was originally no root in leftism to begin with.

[Conscentia]

Spooks are abstractions which restrict you - things that exist only your mind which tell you should and should not do and want. Philosophy as a descriptive pursuit is not such a thing.

That actually makes it sound like philosophy is almost the very definition of a spook.

You and I clearly have different ideas about what the word "philosophy" means then.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

"Everything revolves around your dick. Yes ladies, that counts for you too."

Haha I don't know why people give him any interest. He just says "all you think about is sex. You don't know about it, but you do."
In a way, it's the left-wing style of argument where one takes an unprovable idea and says it like it's absolute fact, where if you have enough critical thinking™ you can see it.

I wouldn't be talking about unprovable shit when your the one that spouts on about this cool guy in the sky who does 'good' shit and all that.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Well too bad. If it happens, it happens. We weren't a species that was to last, so if we went out, might as well with a bang than a whimper.

That's just the problem, though. It won't be with a bang, at least not on a large scale. It'll be with a bunch of little bangs, kids eating magnetically-contained plasma from their junior chemistry sets, idiots discharging their biomatter rifles into their leg and becoming a walking time bomb, someone rigs the engine in fission-fusion spaceship to go faster and it ends up wiping out a city.* What will happen is the slow disintegration of society, town by town, city-by-city, until either the infrastructure or information to maintain such equipment is lost to the general population. Bear in mind that I'm in agreement with you here - you can't stop, you can't stop progress - but I was hoping to talk about how to deal with these problems.

*none of those examples are serious except insofar as escalation of what level of power is seen as 'normal' is concerned

We'd need better monitoring of psychologically unstable people and failsafes guarding against such incidents.
And also, perhaps, some sort of way to keep especially high-energy applications from becoming too integrated into the home. If plasma ovens are the future, so be it- just make it so that at the least the things will not be fail-deadly if someone tries to make the plasma generation system overload (wait, second thought- could they use gases in the environment as plasma or is that too dangerous? is a plasma oven too dangerous in general? probably not but idk). Modern beliefs on fusion reactors state that the things are too finicky to be used to blow up cities. I only believed this. I don't know if it's true. I hope it is!
Now, anyways...who knows what the future's plasma ovens, fusion incinerators, and skyscraper-sized MTF* fusion engines will bring?
But a future government will have to somehow prevent future fusion reactor-powered coilgun rifles from becoming constructible in the comfort of your own home. I'm saying this in part because I thought about it when creating the weapons policy of this nation, and decided that the UCE banned all weapons powered by sources with the potential energy of a hand grenade or larger from being owned by the civilian population, and installed high-quality failsafes in them to prevent them from being so owned should they be passed illegally into civvie hands.
If someone wants to go out with a Colony Drop they can go fuck themselves if the drive, through contact with local ATC or the ship's own sensors or both, detects that the ship's accelerating at a dangerously high speed toward a nearby celestial body or space station when they're already quite close, and initiates a failsafe.
I have no idea what a biomatter rifle is but I imagine that its' victims are quite dangerous to handle if they end up exploding somehow. There would need to be onboard IFF tagging, hardcoded into the firing governance systems of the weapon. Hell, apparently in the future we may have hyperaccurate guns that will exceed what TrackingPoint has out now by identifying our enemies for us and only shooting when the barrel's pointed right at 'em! And I would also hope that a junior chemistry set also contains failsafes for what it's got. Hopefully force fields become a reality in the future.






*- That's magnetized target fusion! Fusion engines can't become women or be men!

[United Marxist Nations]

To quote a popular song from my senior year of high school that one of my best friends continuously repeated regardless of context: "Sticks and stones can break my bones but whips and chains excite me."

Rihanna's ancestors didn't think that way.

[Conserative Morality]

Rihanna's ancestors didn't think that way.

Yeah, yeah, and my ancestors thought god lived in a river. Doesn't stop me from mocking the Potomac.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

Amoralism can also be defined as the rejection of morals for non-moral reasons. If I rejected morals 'because they are bad', THEN I wouldn't be amoral.

No. You make moral judgments unless you're a psychopath. I can't know wether you are or not. You may say "I am amoral," and in an intellectual sense this may true and possible to rationalize, but in a practical sense, short of one of the dark triad, there is no reality to this claim.

Literally you don't know how he fucking thinks. For all you know, he could choose to not murder people because of some logical thinking about how allowing it would burn society down or something. Doing stuff on principle =/= morals. Not every principle is a moral.

[Conserative Morality]

New Rule to Drinking Game: Calling something one doesn't like nor understands leftist when there was originally no root in leftism to begin with.

I value my life, sir!

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

Rihanna's ancestors didn't think that way.

Yeah, yeah, and my ancestors thought god lived in a river. Doesn't stop me from mocking the Potomac.

Ya eat beef too?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Amoralism can also be defined as the rejection of morals for non-moral reasons. If I rejected morals 'because they are bad', THEN I wouldn't be amoral.

No. You make moral judgments unless you're a psychopath. I can't know wether you are or not. You may say "I am amoral," and in an intellectual sense this may true and possible to rationalize, but in a practical sense, short of one of the dark triad, there is no reality to this claim.

Psychopaths make those too, frankly. They may even hold to them for a time. But they'll be discarded the moment they become a hindrance.

[Jumalariik]

Haha I don't know why people give him any interest. He just says "all you think about is sex. You don't know about it, but you do."
In a way, it's the left-wing style of argument where one takes an unprovable idea and says it like it's absolute fact, where if you have enough critical thinking™ you can see it.

New Rule to Drinking Game: Calling something one doesn't like nor understands leftist when there was originally no root in leftism to begin with.

Eh... Marxism is based in that. Any leftist textbook that you pick up will have similar arguments.

New Rule to Drinking Game: Claiming that Marxism is not the root for modern left-wing academic politics in any way

Haha I don't know why people give him any interest. He just says "all you think about is sex. You don't know about it, but you do."
In a way, it's the left-wing style of argument where one takes an unprovable idea and says it like it's absolute fact, where if you have enough critical thinking™ you can see it.

I wouldn't be talking about unprovable shit when your the one that spouts on about this cool guy in the sky who does 'good' shit and all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

[United Marxist Nations]

Haha I don't know why people give him any interest. He just says "all you think about is sex. You don't know about it, but you do."
In a way, it's the left-wing style of argument where one takes an unprovable idea and says it like it's absolute fact, where if you have enough critical thinking™ you can see it.

I wouldn't be talking about unprovable shit when your the one that spouts on about this cool guy in the sky who does 'good' shit and all that.

Oh, the edge.

[Dagashi Shojo]

For the Perennial Traditionalists here (which I think Fahrong, Jochi, and Dushan are), I have a question - devayana or pitriyana?

[Minzerland II]

That assumes morality isn't innate.

I would say desire and greed are - morals are more the idea that people all have the same desires, and all should follow that idea to the very letter... or at least, they should. Obviously killing, stealing, destroying are on top of that list for 'no-nos', but there are more niche morals based on the religion and state - how they feel about sexuality is a big one.
As long as I can have my self-desire and fulfill my greed, I am fine. I just don't society as-is doing that for me or everyone around me.

Morals are derived from experience and, to a limited degree, hereditary; by virtue they're innate to sentient beings.

[Nusaresa]

New Rule to Drinking Game: Calling something one doesn't like nor understands leftist when there was originally no root in leftism to begin with.

I value my life, sir!

And I do not yours nor mine. Sorry~

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

I wouldn't be talking about unprovable shit when your the one that spouts on about this cool guy in the sky who does 'good' shit and all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

Mass Hysteria's a thing, honey.

[Conscentia]

Eh, don't see how. Honestly I am only on this thread because it is busier than others.

You have values and principles that cause you to act. Without values and principles, there is no sentient action.

Do cats have morality?

[Jumalariik]

No. You make moral judgments unless you're a psychopath. I can't know wether you are or not. You may say "I am amoral," and in an intellectual sense this may true and possible to rationalize, but in a practical sense, short of one of the dark triad, there is no reality to this claim.

Literally you don't know how he fucking thinks. For all you know, he could choose to not murder people because of some logical thinking about how allowing it would burn society down or something. Doing stuff on principle =/= morals. Not every principle is a moral.

Eh.... yes it is. If you say "I will not go rape somebody because rape is against my principles, as a logical person, you could claim that those principles should be obeyed by others as well.

Then again, David Hume must be gleefully looking at the mess that he has created.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

I wouldn't be talking about unprovable shit when your the one that spouts on about this cool guy in the sky who does 'good' shit and all that.

Oh, the edge.

How am I being edgy? The whole basis of your faith is that God can't be proven, and so you have to believe in him. The whole fucking point of Faith is Faith, otherwise it wouldn't be called fucking Faith.

[Conserative Morality]

Ya eat beef too?

Once or twice, but my ancestors weren't particularly against eating beef.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

Literally you don't know how he fucking thinks. For all you know, he could choose to not murder people because of some logical thinking about how allowing it would burn society down or something. Doing stuff on principle =/= morals. Not every principle is a moral.

Eh.... yes it is. If you say "I will not go rape somebody because rape is against my principles, as a logical person, you could claim that those principles should be obeyed by others as well.

Then again, David Hume must be gleefully looking at the mess that he has created.

If your principle is that raping someone would cause chaos, and chaos would logically have negative effects, and so on then no its not morals.

Morals are right/wrong judgements without any logic involved.

[United Marxist Nations]

Oh, the edge.

How am I being edgy? The whole basis of your faith is that God can't be proven, and so you have to believe in him. The whole fucking point of Faith is Faith, otherwise it wouldn't be called fucking Faith.

Hume, the whole basis for all belief can't be proven.

[Nusaresa]

For the Perennial Traditionalists here (which I think Fahrong, Jochi, and Dushan are), I have a question - devayana or pitriyana?

The Theravada Buddhist here says hi.

And says to live mindfully and to live the middle way.