Right Wing Discussion Thread the Third

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

The person I created never said that chaos was "bad," though. They logically believed that chaos has negative effects in the form of people being harmed, society being disrupted, etc, etc. At no point did they consider anything morally 'bad.' Again, morals don't have to do with logic. If you base your 'right' and 'wrong' based on logic it isn't morality.

"negative effects in the form of people being harmed, society being disrupted, etc, etc."

Let's use standard English: "Synonyms for negative: adj bad, contradictory"
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/negative

So, if morality is, as is said in standard English, that something bad is immoral, and if we use English and something is negative, it is bad, meaning that it is immoral.

See, morality is a thing unto itself. In morality, a thing is bad because of said morality. Determining something to logically be negative is not the same of saying "its bad bro. muh moral code says so."

[FelrikTheDeleted]

In a very basic kind of way, yes.

No, they don't, they're little shits.

Doesn't that contradict what you said earlier, you hypocrite. *spits on ground*

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

[United Marxist Nations]

"negative effects in the form of people being harmed, society being disrupted, etc, etc."

Let's use standard English: "Synonyms for negative: adj bad, contradictory"
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/negative

So, if morality is, as is said in standard English, that something bad is immoral, and if we use English and something is negative, it is bad, meaning that it is immoral.

See, morality is a thing unto itself. In morality, a thing is bad because of said morality. Determining something to logically be negative is not the same of saying "its bad bro. muh moral code says so."

How do you determine something to be logically negative without first deciding that it is bad?

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBRe2PC6QCM
For your viewing pleasure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZgrfoWo0fo

[Jumalariik]

"negative effects in the form of people being harmed, society being disrupted, etc, etc."

Let's use standard English: "Synonyms for negative: adj bad, contradictory"
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/negative

So, if morality is, as is said in standard English, that something bad is immoral, and if we use English and something is negative, it is bad, meaning that it is immoral.

See, morality is a thing unto itself. In morality, a thing is bad because of said morality. Determining something to logically be negative is not the same of saying "its bad bro. muh moral code says so."

Any actual standard English dictionary definitions to back this up? Not trying to be rude, I just don't think you can actually back up these claims with any sources that use non-academyspeak.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

See, morality is a thing unto itself. In morality, a thing is bad because of said morality. Determining something to logically be negative is not the same of saying "its bad bro. muh moral code says so."

How do you determine something to be logically negative without first deciding that it is bad?

Its effects.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

See, morality is a thing unto itself. In morality, a thing is bad because of said morality. Determining something to logically be negative is not the same of saying "its bad bro. muh moral code says so."

How do you determine something to be logically negative without first deciding that it is bad?

by deciding that you don't want to experience it at any point in your life or ever again if you have experienced it already

[Dushan]

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

The mahayana and pantheistic influenced Zen Buddhist says Hi.

[United Marxist Nations]

How do you determine something to be logically negative without first deciding that it is bad?

Its effects.

Why are its effects negative or bad?

[Jumalariik]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBRe2PC6QCM
For your viewing pleasure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZgrfoWo0fo

I had kebab for dinner.

See, morality is a thing unto itself. In morality, a thing is bad because of said morality. Determining something to logically be negative is not the same of saying "its bad bro. muh moral code says so."

How do you determine something to be logically negative without first deciding that it is bad?

If you could then modern academics wouldn't be being paid to argue that it was true.

[Jochizyd Republic]

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

Kind of, Yeah.

Devayana of course. It seems to be the equivalent of the Sufi Path.

[Conserative Morality]

See, morality is a thing unto itself. In morality, a thing is bad because of said morality. Determining something to logically be negative is not the same of saying "its bad bro. muh moral code says so."

To determine if something is negative, one must make a value judgement on the matter. In making a value judgement, they draw on basic ideas, even if unexpressed or unconscious, and so make a decision based on a very basic kind of morality.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

See, morality is a thing unto itself. In morality, a thing is bad because of said morality. Determining something to logically be negative is not the same of saying "its bad bro. muh moral code says so."

Any actual standard English dictionary definitions to back this up? Not trying to be rude, I just don't think you can actually back up these claims with any sources that use non-academyspeak.

Your definition's fine. Its just your looking at the words 'right' in 'wrong' too broadly for the context. Besides, dictionaries offer a basic definition. Morality is a pretty complex abstract concept.

[Nusaresa]

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

The mahayana and pantheistic influenced Zen Buddhist says Hi.

no one is going to save you

meditate more you branch-off

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Its effects.

Why are its effects negative or bad?

because they make you feel bad and you dislike them
either because they trigger your brain's self-preservation systems or because they trigger your brain's self-preservation systems in an ancillary neocortical fashion e.g. "NIGHTCLUBS ARE DEGENERACY"

[Jumalariik]

How do you determine something to be logically negative without first deciding that it is bad?

by deciding that you don't want to experience it at any point in your life or ever again if you have experienced it already

What?

[Conserative Morality]

Any actual standard English dictionary definitions to back this up? Not trying to be rude, I just don't think you can actually back up these claims with any sources that use non-academyspeak.

The anti-intellectualism is strong in this one.

[Minzerland II]

No, they don't, they're little shits.

Doesn't that contradict what you said earlier, you hypocrite. *spits on ground*

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

Cats don't feel anything because they're cats.

[Conserative Morality]

no one is going to save you

That's a lie. I'll save you!

[Jumalariik]

Any actual standard English dictionary definitions to back this up? Not trying to be rude, I just don't think you can actually back up these claims with any sources that use non-academyspeak.

Your definition's fine. Its just your looking at the words 'right' in 'wrong' too broadly for the context. Besides, dictionaries offer a basic definition. Morality is a pretty complex abstract concept.

Dictionaries give us what things actually mean. If your definition for something is not that which is generally agreed upon in most dictionaries, it is a non-standard English usage, which kind of makes it irrelevant to any real conversation.

[Dagashi Shojo]

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

Kind of, Yeah.

Devayana of course. It seems to be the equivalent of the Sufi Path.

Pitriyana for me, sorry.

[United Marxist Nations]

Why are its effects negative or bad?

because they make you feel bad and you dislike them
either because they trigger your brain's self-preservation systems or because they trigger your brain's self-preservation systems in an ancillary neocortical fashion e.g. "NIGHTCLUBS ARE DEGENERACY"

Yes, but then morality isn't an actual thing, it is just opinions, and therefore is completely pointless (e.g. I could go murder degenerates and still be morally right).

[FelrikTheDeleted]

How do you determine something to be logically negative without first deciding that it is bad?

by deciding that you don't want to experience it at any point in your life or ever again if you have experienced it already

Does that count for getting life saving vaccines?

[Jumalariik]

Any actual standard English dictionary definitions to back this up? Not trying to be rude, I just don't think you can actually back up these claims with any sources that use non-academyspeak.

The anti-intellectualism is strong in this one.

If intellectualism contradicts reality, reality is not at fault.

[Conserative Morality]

Cats don't feel anything.

... it's generally accepted that cats can experience qualia.