Developous wrote:

Love is no less important than HATE. In religious circles, in fact, its MORE important.

The idea that religion is about love is new. It's a 19th century invention. Previous to this, religion was very much about conquest and purity. Love is also a very bohemian idea. The modern conception of "love" being something good is also very new... And very backward.

Religion does not override human nature. Especially given the self-evident fact that even in the unlikely case there is a religion that is divinely inspired, the vast majority of them have been made up out of whole cloth by human beings, and thus are slaves to the same social imperatives of the beings that invented it.

Even marriage and partnership prior to the modern era, was almost always about social positioning and family duties, and not about love. The modern conception of love is largely invented.

Even the ancient stories of love and classical romanticism most often tell of the drug-like influence of what we would call "love" today, where men and women have led all to ruin in the pursuit of obsessive, sudden bouts of love.

Classic examples would be the Shakespearean tragedies, and even the comedies, the story of the Trojan war, and the Greek epics.

Without those common goals, and a sense of personal welfare, empires wouldnt've been developed in the first place. Those people cared enough for their own beliefs, just as I care for such as well.

I'm not refuting that people can believe that they stand for good, justice, and love. What I am pointing out, is that human beings with strong convictions always encounter an equally convinced slave to another ideal. When opposing ideals meet, the result is always conflict. Without this conflict, human beings would have no need to band together. Without the need to band together, human beings would still be in conflict with one another, only through direct competition, rather than group competition. Thus, the competitive urge is far more basal than the urge to socialize.

Even I'm guilty of hatred, suspicion, and mistrust, admittedly. But the point is justice. Love teaches us to do the RIGHT thing to do - regardless how painful it may be. And who is anyone but a fool to refuse TRUTH regardless the situation?

Justice has nothing to do with love. Justice has to do with ensuring the stability of a social hierarchy, in the most extreme examples, it has to do with ensuring that rights of property are respected by executing those who refuse to recognize law.

The only pathway to truth I put stock in is reason, and love is by definition unreasonable.

Developous wrote:

Love, admittedly, is on the EMOTIONAL side of things. But from what I take it, this indicates you have NO morals and ethics where I stand.

I'm not sure I want to ask how you came to that conclusion.

I see LOVE more as PASSION, DEVOTION, and MERCY than anything else. Physical Marriage is out of the question for me, in fact. If I was married, I would be married to by BELIEFS.

uh...ok

INTENT. Such can be backed with one's BELIEFS of love or hate. Just look how much I care for your beliefs, regardless your responses. You attack me with logic, I strike back with emotion, and vice versus.

lol

Reason is pointless without the wisdom to back it up, which is both logic and emotion.
However, WISDOM alone ISN'T pointless as that's EXPERIENCE.

You just gave two definitions of wisdom. Which one is it? D:

You have no idea of the pain I suffer over my perceptions of mercy and justice. Nor, do I suspect, you care in the first place, when you MUST.

I don't think anyone will care until you spout something that makes sense.

Developous wrote:

It cannot make sense as it's all EMOTION with a person's sense of control and force.

so stop bringing it to the forums like you expect people to care, everyone here doesn't care very much if it doesn't make sense lol

Nope. Sorry, but I consider myself to have a strong sense of morals and ethics that I live by on a daily basis.

Honestly, I don't care if you don't think I have morals and ethics. I don't know you, and I'm not going to trouble myself with what you think of me. I'm also not going to try to understand your ways of judging someone's morals. From what I can understand, you seem to think that if someone doesn't care about your emotional nonsense, they don't have morals. Sounds like a self-entitled spoiled child to me, but whatever floats your boat.

You have no idea of the pain I suffer over my perceptions of mercy and justice. Nor, do I suspect, you care in the first place, when you MUST.

If your worldview causes you psychological distress, you probably shouldn't expect others to handle your ideas with gloves. In fact, if your worldview causes you psychological distress, you really should be seeking professional psychiatric or therapeutic help.

And I do care about what you think. Your views are... Interesting, and they strike a morbid curiosity. Seeing as everybody else is interested in trolling you, I'm actually going to poke the bear a bit and figure out what makes you tick.

Unfortunately, it's hard to offer much criticism of your views when they appear to be deliberately obfuscated by language that is simultaneously meaningless and symbolic.

Just look how much I care for your beliefs, regardless your responses.

If I wasn't so cautious, I would take that as a very unkind thing to say. You have not responded in any way to any of my arguments. At best, you have returned untelligible strings of sentences that insist that you are correct, and that I am incorrect, and yet, somehow, you completely neglect to actually offer any critique, correction, or analysis aside from your insistence that I have got it wrong.

I'm not sure what you are saying there, but the way I read it, you are saying simply, that either:

1) You are better than me for the way in which you have responded to me, and that I have "attacked you".

or:

2) That you don't care about my responses, and will insist on your opinion regardless of my reasoning.

But from what I take it, this indicates you have NO morals and ethics where I stand.

Ah. This is a classic response from someone who stands from a position of moral absolutism. Typically, when confronted with moral relativism, the cliche response is "you have no sense of ethics if you don't believe in my viewpoint."

The purpose of this comment is quite often, a thinly veiled attempt to vindicate the self by slandering the opponent, rather than defeating their argument.

The thing is, stating that I have no system of ethics or morals is quite far from the truth. I don't need to demonstrate that I have a system of morals or ethics. You have to demonstrate that I lack them. --Simply declaring it won't work. You have to point out my transgressions against a particular moral code. But first, you have to construct a cohesive moral code upon which the audience completely agrees upon in order to even begin to build a case about my moral bankruptcy.

Now, not having done that, do you see how intellectually bankrupt it is declare that I lack a sense of morality, without first demonstrating it, or at least, declaring a clear, agreed upon moral standard that I fail to uphold?

In short. Don't do this. It's presumptuous, rude, and the motives for this rhetorical device are quite easily deconstructed by even the most layman of observers.

I see LOVE more as PASSION, DEVOTION, and MERCY than anything else.

Okay, once again, I have to be clear. You can't just define words to mean what you mean them to be again. You have to stick with the clear use.

Again, how exactly are passion, devotion, and mercy the basis of all human emotions? What's merciful about hate? What's passionate about apathy? What does fear have to do with devotion?

Human emotions cannot simply be summed up on a spectrum and defined by one word, which is later redefined by three, completely unrelated words.

You attack me with logic, I strike back with emotion, and vice versus.

Basically, what you are saying, is that I'm using reason, and you are not. Why then, attempt to explore an idea, if you admit you are neglecting to reason?

That's not very scholarly, now is it?

Reason is pointless without the wisdom to back it up, which is both logic and emotion.

Are you calling me unwise now?

Definition of wisdom, by the way, since yours seem to belong to a dictionary I'm not familiar with:

the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment;

You are partly right. Emotion is part of experience, but experience transcends emotion. Logic and reason are part of what it is to be wise. One who does not act logically is a fool. Fools are unwise.

Experience is the basis of knowledge. If one cannot analyze their experiences, one cannot ascertain the truth from them, as opposed to those times when the senses are misled.

Knowledge, is the accumulation of facts, gained through experience and analysis.

Good judgement, can only be made by those with the ability to ascertain the facts, and to marshall reason to their service in a given situation.


As such, the only place for emotion in the defintion of wisdom, is either the explicit control and proper management thereof, or the total leashing of it for the sake of the furthering of the reasonable self. Emotion can lead to unreasonable, unintelligible responses to stimuli, and thus can impact our ability to make the wise choice. However, it can also be used for empathy, which is part of making decisions: considering options from another person's perspective.

Emotion without reason is dangerous. Reason without emotion is far less so, but still problematic.

Okay, I'll respect your beliefs, hell I even respect my grandad's beliefs that he's still 30 years old and working, while he's actually in a hospital bed.

Good luck with what you say :)

There is a big difference between RESPECT and APPROVAL.

Respect only means you will prioritize other's beliefs over your own, unless proven otherwise.

ACCEPT, on the other hand, is a totally different story.

Even I don't have the full potential to judge EVERY intent. But within my mind, I've come darned closer to that than everyone else where I stand.

"Beliefs" make up a person's CORE. Violate that, and you can only earn his hatred, or worse, he could become a sworn enemy. If those beliefs are 'Truths' - they turn into mighty PRINCIPLES - which are an UNBEATABLE defense.

My CORE is INSANELY difficult to violate, thanks to "Mercy" - but the line, once violated, is so extremely thin, that to cross it - I would wish eternal damnation over you - something I would ONLY resort to if I'm 100% certain there is no hope and your 'evil' is by far too heinous for any chance of redemption.

:P I have no internal logic consistency, so you know. Further, there are those who think I'm a HYPOCRITE.
I say I have paranoia and fear as well.

But the real question is - do you perceive me as good or bad?

So as long as my reasoning doesn't make sense, I have by far greater wisdom than thou. I dare say even time cube can compete, as I've evolved it within my mind.

Ter13 wrote:

Developous, have you met Dariuc? I think you two might hit it off.

I'll just ignore that. Despite what you think I'm not remotely interested in anachachy. I'll admit the government has it's own set of problems, but if you drag the average american out of a crowd and ask them to tell every dirty secret or sin they've ever committed to the world, they'd lie in a heartbeat.

Ironically- that's how people treat the government. Nothing is perfect , least of all anarchy. In fact, most people wouldn't survive anarchy, because it's literally "be strong or die" , you're free to do literally whatever you want in America, you just have to deal with the consequences and that's just how it is in life without "laws". I'm not sure why people don't realize that.