back to the beginning: morality

[phyllo]

I am evil. So are you. Existence has it no other way.

Everything is evil. Got it.

I however, am less evil than you. It's objectively true because I speak truth to power. I'm the guy who says "fuck you" to an existence like this, you kowtow to false is power

Existence says "whatever".

[Ecmandu]

I am evil. So are you. Existence has it no other way.

Everything is evil. Got it.

I however, am less evil than you. It's objectively true because I speak truth to power. I'm the guy who says "fuck you" to an existence like this, you kowtow to false is power

Existence says "whatever".

Everything is evil because everyone MUST violate consent, whether they want to or not.

The best that you can do in life is recognize this and say "fuck this shit!" And see where it goes from there.

You haven't reached the "fuck this shit" stage yet.

[phyllo]

The best that you can do in life is recognize this and say "fuck this shit!" And see where it goes from there.

No, that's not the "best that you can do".

You can say that you "accept it all" and that existence is not evil. Then you can act to change what you think ought to be made better in the future.

[Ecmandu]

The best that you can do in life is recognize this and say "fuck this shit!" And see where it goes from there.

No, that's not the "best that you can do".

You can say that you "accept it all" and that existence is not evil. Then you can act to change what you think ought to be made better in the future.

That's patently false. If you accept it all, then there's no reason - and thus motivation - to change anything.

[phyllo]

That's patently false. If you accept it all, then there's no reason - and thus motivation - to change anything.

It is this way, but it won't stay this way. It will move in some direction which you can choose to alter. The motivation is to nudge it to a specific direction.

[Karpel Tunnel]

That's not my point.

What was your point?
I get that the first time he wrote something you did not like he could be seen as violating your intent. But there is no reason to ask him to stop. You have to power to stop this. The universe, this one, allows people in a myriad of ways to override the consent of others. But, there are some things that work - in relation to that criterion - and this is one.

BTW, I have an internal 'foe' function and it might come up later.

If you really wanted him to not be impinging on you, you would have used it already.

[phyllo]

I wanted to test whether objective morality is all about consent violation.
So I presented him with a situation where he was violating my consent.

Immediately he found something more important than avoiding violating my consent - "speaking truth to power".

And he was not very upset or sorry about violating my consent.

Therefore, I conclude that objective morality is not all about consent violation.

[Ecmandu]

I wanted to test whether objective morality is all about consent violation.
So I presented him with a situation where he was violating my consent.

Immediately he found something more important than avoiding violating my consent - "speak truth to power".

And he was not very upset or sorry about violating my consent.

Therefore, I conclude that objective morality is not all about consent violation.

Phyllo! It's IMPOSSIBLE to not violate someone's consent in this reality ... !!!

You're not the ONLY person on earth!!

There are larger considerations to be made here; speaking truth to power (me) or obeying false to power (you). I chose honor over dishonor. You choose dishonor over honor.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I wanted to test whether objective morality is all about consent violation.
So I presented him with a situation where he was violating my consent.

Immediately he found something more important than avoiding violating my consent - "speaking truth to power".

And he was not very upset or sorry about violating my consent.

Therefore, I conclude that objective morality is not all about consent violation.

What if he's a consequentialist not a deontologist, so opening space for there actually being an end to consent violation, in the long run, could still be the focus. He thinks he can solve consent violations and presumably knowing about the issue has benefits, even if it is also a lesser evil.

And then, you presented a situation, but it wasn't a real one. YOu have the power. It's not like some kid getting hit by shrapnel from a drone.

[Ecmandu]

Yeah... what Karpel said above as well.

Beautifully put and translated Karpel

[phyllo]

What was unreal about it?

I actually think that he ought to stop posting this nonsense.

Yes. I have the power. So does he. He doesn't need to think that his consent is violated by a sidewalk when he stubs his toe.

It's in his power not to see the sidewalk as evil.

[Ecmandu]

What was unreal about it?

I actually think that he ought to stop posting this nonsense.

Yes. I have the power. So does he. He doesn't need to think that his consent is violated by a sidewalk when he stubs his toe.

It's in his power not to see the sidewalk as evil.

Every psychopath on earth agrees with you phyllo.

Until it happens to them...

[surreptitious75]

Everything is evil because everyone MUST violate consent whether or not they want to

The best that you can do in life is recognize this and say fuck this shit ! And see where it goes from there

The best that you can do is recognise that shit inevitably happens and be as detached about it as possible
Getting angry does not make the shit go away but being detached means its not getting to you in any way

[Karpel Tunnel]

What was unreal about it?

I actually think that he ought to stop posting this nonsense.

So, you really feel like your consent is being violated, but haven't stopped interacting with him when you have a few different easy options to not read his posts?

Yes. I have the power. So does he. He doesn't need to think that his consent is violated by a sidewalk when he stubs his toe.

It's in his power not to see the sidewalk as evil.

i missed his sidewalks are evil posts.

[phyllo]

So, you really feel like your consent is being violated, but haven't stopped interacting with him when you have a few different easy options to not read his posts?

There are several possible answers to that question.

1. I already said that I was testing his 'consent violation' morality.
He doesn't care about violating my consent at all.

2. Sure, I could step aside and let the lunatics run the asylum. But I think it's better to expose their nonsense for what it is.

3. In this 'consent violation' morality, my consent is being violated. He is doing the violating. I'm the victim. He is the perpetrator. Should I/we accommodate the perp?

Yeah, women could avoid being raped by not wearing tight fitting clothes, not going to bars, movies or riding the bus. But is that the appropriate response? I think not.

Why are you siding with the perp?

[surreptitious75]

He thinks he can solve consent violations and presumably knowing about the issue has benefits even if it is also a lesser evil

He cannot actually solve something if he freely admits to it being unavoidable - which he does
So the best one can do is to minimise it wherever possible but it cannot be eradicated entirely

[phyllo]

His "solution" is that everyone gets his own universe where everything happens exactly as you want it to happen and nothing that you do has any impact on anyone because you are completely alone.

Why didn't we think of that before?

[promethean75]

What if he's a consequentialist not a deontologist, so opening space for there actually being an end to consent violation, in the long run, could still be the focus.

This might be what we need; a consent violation to end all consent violations, and ecmandu could very well be the man for the job.

Think it over, E. It's time for you to get serious and stop messing around with sidewalks.

[Ecmandu]

So, you really feel like your consent is being violated, but haven't stopped interacting with him when you have a few different easy options to not read his posts?

There are several possible answers to that question.

1. I already said that I was testing his 'consent violation' morality.
He doesn't care about violating my consent at all.

2. Sure, I could step aside and let the lunatics run the asylum. But I think it's better to expose their nonsense for what it is.

3. In this 'consent violation' morality, my consent is being violated. He is doing the violating. I'm the victim. He is the perpetrator. Should I/we accommodate the perp?

Yeah, women could avoid being raped by not wearing tight fitting clothes, not going to bars, movies or riding the bus. But is that the appropriate response? I think not.

Why are you siding with the perp?

I already explained this to you three times.

You are 'false to power'

My 'truth to power' is the lesser of two evils.

You're the perp.

[Ecmandu]

His "solution" is that everyone gets his own universe where everything happens exactly as you want it to happen and nothing that you do has any impact on anyone because you are completely alone.

Why didn't we think of that before?

Hyperdimensional mirror realities work exactly like this one, just that the beings are reflections - you are far from alone. I'd point out that we're even more alone in this reality then that one.

[phyllo]

You are 'false to power'

My 'truth to power' is the lesser of two evils.

Why don't you explain what "false to power" and "truth to power" mean for a start?

[surreptitious75]

I have already told him more than once that the only solution to consent violation is extinction
This is because once the human species is dead no one can violate anyones consent ever again
And so Mother Nature will take care of the problem for us because entropy comes as standard

Ecmandu however prefers his own approach : create hyper dimensional mirrors where we all have our own Universe
The delicious irony is that by the time Mother Nature has finally taken care of him he will no longer be able to do this
And once we are all taken care of the question becomes academic since consent violation will no longer be a problem

Now one could say that Mother Nature is violating Ecmandus consent by killing him as she does with every life form but he is powerless to stop this
And also consent violation is only really a feature of sufficiently complex minds with free will so does not include either Mother Nature or sidewalks

[Ecmandu]

You are 'false to power'

My 'truth to power' is the lesser of two evils.

Why don't you explain what "false to power" and "truth to power" mean for a start?

You're empowering false, I'm empowering truth:

Giving attention to.

[phyllo]

You are 'false to power'

My 'truth to power' is the lesser of two evils.

Why don't you explain what "false to power" and "truth to power" mean for a start?

You're empowering false, I'm empowering truth:

Giving attention to.

That explains it.

[Ecmandu]

Phyllo, you're just sour grapes pissed because it's a disproof of god.