Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Kowani]

Ends justify the means.

What's the difference.

Depends on who you ask.

[Salus Maior]

What the article says it is. A priest.

As far as I can tell, none of the temple's heads have referred to the robot as a priest, although some Japanese news sources refer to the robot as a Buddhist priest (僧侶) probably colloquially, since it's situated in the temple, shaped like a Buddhist goddess, and preaches Buddhist sutras. Imagine being so triggered that some news sources choose to use a word that you insult a whole country, lol.

Oh, I can insult a whole country without an article as well.

And you've been pretty triggered yourself, frankly.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Y'know, for the many faults of the New Deal, I'm willing to reckon that from FDR's inauguration to about the moment that the National Recovery Administration was declared unconstitutional, the United States was on the pathway to a sort of corporatist regimentation roughly concordant with my ideological views.

Smh we're living in the worst timeline...

As a side note, the astute among you all may have noticed that the eagle in my new flag is the symbol of the National Recovery Administration, a New Deal government agency that was declared unconstitutional due to being, in essence, rather broad in authority IIRC. From what I've read, I've determined that said eagle would be, perhaps, the best symbol already in existence for a reformed collectivist/communitarian United States. Thoughts on the vexillology?

[Hanafuridake]

Oh, I can insult a whole country without an article as well.

Weird flex but okay.

And you've been pretty triggered yourself, frankly.

You insulted most of Japan as full of gimmicks and said that modern Japanese are unable to form sincere relationships. It's a bit different from being triggered because an English news article chose to use the word “priest” in order to describe a robot which proselytizes.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What's a good sentiment? "The ends justify the means," or "evil incarnate?"

Ends justify the means.

It's not a very good sentiment, because if that statement means anything at all, it means to excuse bad actions as long as they work towards a good goal. The problem is, goals are a dream, and actions are what matter. Therefore good actions are far more important than good goals. Because most of the time, the good goal never comes to fruition, and you're only left with the bad actions. Better to play it safe, and build your morality on the rock of actions than the sand of consequences. Because often you don't know what the consequences will be.

[Kowani]

Ends justify the means.

It's not a very good sentiment, because if that statement means anything at all, it means to excuse bad actions as long as they work towards a good goal. The problem is, goals are a dream, and actions are what matter. Therefore good actions are far more important than good goals. Because most of the time, the good goal never comes to fruition, and you're only left with the bad actions. Better to play it safe, and build your morality on the rock of actions than the sand of consequences. Because often you don't know what the consequences will be.

I did say to utilize more nuance. But. How can one analyze an action without looking at its consequences? A goal is a dream, but dreams can and have been attained. Bad actions are not bad in and of themselves, they are bad if they fail to attain the end goal. Thus, one must analyze and attempt to predict the most likely outcomes of any action in pursuit of their goal.

[Hanafuridake]

I don't understand why you're so ruffled up about it. It's an interesting experiment, imo. You never know, an AI may even surprise us with useful spiritual insights.

Dōgen had a dream where he stepped on a piece of shit which declared itself the Buddha and meditated under a tree. Someone learning from a robot isn't the weirdest spiritual story out there.

I've never agreed with vitalism, it places too much emphasis on the material being. Man creates life all the time, we procreate, a sentient artificial entity would be little different from a metaphysical standpoint than a child. It would be endowed with a soul, immaterial and belonging to God (swt) nonetheless.

That's fair.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It's not a very good sentiment, because if that statement means anything at all, it means to excuse bad actions as long as they work towards a good goal. The problem is, goals are a dream, and actions are what matter. Therefore good actions are far more important than good goals. Because most of the time, the good goal never comes to fruition, and you're only left with the bad actions. Better to play it safe, and build your morality on the rock of actions than the sand of consequences. Because often you don't know what the consequences will be.

I did say to utilize more nuance. But. How can one analyze an action without looking at its consequences? A goal is a dream, but dreams can and have been attained. Bad actions are not bad in and of themselves, they are bad if they fail to attain the end goal. Thus, one must analyze and attempt to predict the most likely outcomes of any action in pursuit of their goal.

No, some bad actions are inherently bad. Murder for example extinguishes a life. That's not a consequence, that's inherent.

[Kowani]

I did say to utilize more nuance. But. How can one analyze an action without looking at its consequences? A goal is a dream, but dreams can and have been attained. Bad actions are not bad in and of themselves, they are bad if they fail to attain the end goal. Thus, one must analyze and attempt to predict the most likely outcomes of any action in pursuit of their goal.

No, some bad actions are inherently bad. Murder for example extinguishes a life. That's not a consequence, that's inherent.

If one would murder one to save one hundred, then murder it is.

[Hanafuridake]

No, some bad actions are inherently bad. Murder for example extinguishes a life. That's not a consequence, that's inherent.

If one would murder one to save one hundred, then murder it is.

What's the context though?

It wouldn't be right to murder one innocent man for the sake of a hundred murderers.

[Big Jim P]

No, some bad actions are inherently bad. Murder for example extinguishes a life. That's not a consequence, that's inherent.

If one would murder one to save one hundred, then murder it is.

Then it wouldn't be murder. Not all killing is.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

No, some bad actions are inherently bad. Murder for example extinguishes a life. That's not a consequence, that's inherent.

If one would murder one to save one hundred, then murder it is.

Is that ever going to be a realistic scenario (without qualifying as self-defense)?

[Kowani]

If one would murder one to save one hundred, then murder it is.

What's the context though?

It wouldn't be right to murder one innocent man for the sake of a hundred murderers.

I assumed for the sake of the scenario that all were innocent. Things get twisted if I put my thumb on the scales.

[Kowani]

If one would murder one to save one hundred, then murder it is.

Is that ever going to be a realistic scenario (without qualifying as self-defense)?

Looking at strongmen who are the only things holding rebel groups together in the third world? Yep.

[Old Tyrannia]

Well, I guess I'm a scorning Westerner.

If you want to personify Google and call that "wisdom", fine. But a computer can't really relate to a human being, it can repeat teachings about "desire" and so forth but it's only repeating what you could probably find in a quick search on Buddhist teaching. It can't truly relate to the human experience.

It's a gimmick. Like most things in modern Japan.

The main problem with this is that the machine in question (as far as we're aware) lacks sapience; it can't even perform a half-decent emulation and/or imitation of sapience. However, I suspect that in a few decades, things will be somewhat... different in that regard. The rise of sapient machine intelligences, I mean.

Actually, I've been meaning to ask the NSers who believe in the notion of a "soul" (for lack of a more precise term) whether non-human (sapient) beings would have one. I know that views on the nature of the soul are varied, ranging from "everyone but me is a P-zombie (solipsism/quasi-solipsism)" to "inanimate objects have souls (panpsychism, IIRC)". What do y'all think, though?

I understand the soul as the intangible element of the human mind, our collective experiences, thoughts, feelings, character and so forth. The soul does not and cannot exist independently of the body. John Polkinghorne, the physicist turned Anglican theologian, describes the soul as our "software" as the body is the "hardware," and explains that when we die, God downloads our "software" onto his "hard drive" (i.e. Hades) for storage until the Resurrection, when we will be downloaded onto new hardware that will last forever. Like Polkinghorne, I subscribe to a monistic understanding of reality and, as such, I reject the Platonically influenced dualistic view that the soul exists as a mystical entity independent of the body.

As for whether non-human beings have souls, I would describe any living being with the capacity to experience the external world for itself to possess a soul, including most animal life; and I hold with John Wesley's argument that redemption extends to the whole of creation as a necessary result of God's justice and omnibenevolence.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Is that ever going to be a realistic scenario (without qualifying as self-defense)?

Looking at strongmen who are the only things holding rebel groups together in the third world? Yep.

Yeah, that's self-denfence.

[Kowani]

Looking at strongmen who are the only things holding rebel groups together in the third world? Yep.

Yeah, that's self-denfence.

In that case, I would point out that multiple times in history that has been a thing. The multiple failed assassination attempts against Hitler by Germans who weren’t acting in self defense any more than John Wilkes Booth was should work.

[Fahran]

If I may, sometimes I suspect that you're actually a Hobbit. It's a silly notion, I know, but it seems that your ideal regime would basically be the Shire.

While I may be little, I categorically deny having hairy feet. The Shire did represent Tolkien's ideal to some extent though, namely the rustic English countryside and the mode of life that prevailed there. It's one of the earliest and most visceral evocations of the Good he gives us in his work.

Less bloody than mine, sure. But no more tenable. Sorry. You’re like, one of the nicer people on here, but it’s still untenable.

Some of what I advocate is at present the norm in some rural communities, though distributism is a bit trickier to implement in a way that won't damage the economy. And it's not as though my views are wholly without nuance. I'm well aware that we need cities to maintain our present economic apparatus. I just have something of a personal dislike for the frenetic pace of life and the coldness of cities.

Oh, and thank you.

[Nea Byzantia]

We shall go knee deep into the despair of our enemies.

[United Muscovite Nations]

We shall go knee deep into the despair of our enemies.

Kinda weird to post the propaganda of the side that lost while bragging you'll cause your enemies despair.

[Novus America]

If I may, sometimes I suspect that you're actually a Hobbit. It's a silly notion, I know, but it seems that your ideal regime would basically be the Shire.

While I may be little, I categorically deny having hairy feet. The Shire did represent Tolkien's ideal to some extent though, namely the rustic English countryside and the mode of life that prevailed there. It's one of the earliest and most visceral evocations of the Good he gives us in his work.

Less bloody than mine, sure. But no more tenable. Sorry. You’re like, one of the nicer people on here, but it’s still untenable.

Some of what I advocate is at present the norm in some rural communities, though distributism is a bit trickier to implement in a way that won't damage the economy. And it's not as though my views are wholly without nuance. I'm well aware that we need cities to maintain our present economic apparatus. I just have something of a personal dislike for the frenetic pace of life and the coldness of cities.

Oh, and thank you.

As much as I disagree with Tolkien’s Luddite stuff, it is quite possible for rural and urban society to coexist. The existence of NYC does not preclude the existence of Montana.
Admittedly it can create political conflicts (NYC uses its political power to screw Upstate New York.

But this can be resolved by devolution, in New York for example we could devolve must of Albany’s powers to more local government.
Also the US system of the electoral college and Senate ensuring rural areas still get representation. Sure improvements need to be made but the principle is sound.

[Nea Byzantia]

Kinda weird to post the propaganda of the side that lost while bragging you'll cause your enemies despair.

The image is just beautiful, though, and in the long run Communism fell and the Russian Flag flies once again...

[Greater Loegria]

I too subscribe to Shire-ism and Tolkein’s rural aesthetic. I wish Britain could just be a collection of villages of thatched cottages and stone chapels where most people either farm or run small artisan shops. Where everyone goes to church on Sunday and play cricket on Saturday afternoons in the summer or rugby in the winter.

[Kowani]

I too subscribe to Shire-ism and Tolkein’s rural aesthetic. I wish Britain could just be a collection of villages of thatched cottages and stone chapels where most people either farm or run small artisan shops. Where everyone goes to church on Sunday and play cricket on Saturday afternoons in the summer or rugby in the winter.

“Gets invaded in a month.”

[United Muscovite Nations]

Kinda weird to post the propaganda of the side that lost while bragging you'll cause your enemies despair.

The image is just beautiful, though, and in the long run Communism fell and the Russian Flag flies once again...

With all of the values of Imperial Russia dead as a doornail.