Hilarious!

Was human evolution directed by something other than God? That is to say by something or someone exterresterial or terrestrial in nature, specifically as it applies to the development of the brain?

Current theories of human evolution of brain capacity and intelligence in general are patchy and speculative at best when it comes to explaining how it arose so quickly in comparison to other organs.

Agreed on the poor usage of the term "comfortable", as there are plenty of people who live and worship in fear of judgement.

As for your statement that "we" were very clearly coached some 2000 years ago, I assume you mean those of Judeo-Christian values. Do you think you, or anyone else has a handle on a coaching session that happened so many thousands of years ago, assuming it was the "right" coaching session to begin with?

Do you think the message hasn't been garbled, re-written, and mistranslated in all that time? Do you think you have access to the only correct interpretation? These aren't rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely asking how do KNOW you aren't fooling yourself and how do you know the source material hasn't been co-opted by politics and fallible words of men?

I disagree that stupidity isn't correlated (in the opposite direction) of whatever we're defining as goodness. If you want to know what is good, you have to be able to think. Stupid people don't think. You don't have to be intelligent to be good, but you do have to able to think about the question of "Is what I'm about to do actually good, or just something I've been told to do by someone else and I have to trust it as good"

If you're arguing for the latter, that's an argument from authority. This works with children because that's about all they're able to comprehend. As an adult, we need something a little more sophisticated to figure out if we're actually being good, or just doing what we're told.

That's what I mean by stupidity.

I honestly don't care. Voting for individuals to make significant decisions in government for myself is like trying to legislate my own behavior by giving the responsibility to someone else.

Or is that just a comfortable belief you have? How do you know anyone or anything is judging the moral value of the choices you make?

The word judgment is a lot like honesty. It implies a judge, and a judge implies something or someone with a value system, and a value system implies the universe or whatever is in charge of judging the beings that are acting inside of it.

Ignoring the existential and philosophical problems of proving that there is some kind of Judge that is ticking off all the things you do throughout your life and keeping some kind of score, there's the deeper problem of how falllible humans would ever get notified of how these rules work, and how to properly put them into implementation.

There's too many variables and moving parts for this theory to hold any validity in my mind. I think the closest to objective morality that you're going to get is the Law of Attraction. Like attracts like. If you murder, you're likely going to hanging around murderers or be at greater risk for getting murdered yourself. I think that's the only version of "judgment" that comes as a result of cause and effect.

Edit: That doesn't mean I reject the notion of objective morality or ethics. I just don't think it comes from the top-down. It has to come from the ground-up, at least in my view, and it has no truth outside of the context of the social contract that we share with others. I think that's the best we can do. Top-down ethics have been tried before, and certainly when the state and religion were one in the same, it was the go-to method in controlling human behavior into some kind of codified ethics. I'm sure we both know how well that turned out, and the separation of church and state was only a slight improvement here in United States.

Otherwise, you have to contend with a system of judgment that is morally ambiguous and relativisitic at best due to problems with language, intelligence and comprehension. Stupid people are rarely good people, by whatever yardstick you want to use, and the world is full of them.

I'm not so sure right or wrong are anything other that comfortable categories of behavior we like to think that we know intuitively; which on an individual level, I think this is as true as something can be. But I suppose they are comfortable lies because they're not Objective Truths in the big T sense.

On a social level or zoom out further to historical level, it probably doesn't make much difference if you assisted that old lady across the street, or ran her over at the cross-walk.

Does the universe care either way? In the end, it doesn't matter. It only matters if YOU care and how that impacts you and how you live your life.

The dictionary is a fine place to start, but at a certain point, definitions become necessarily circular at some point.

The various definitions of honesty lead to words that are similarly circular or self-referential. Words like loyalty, honor, fairness, integrity, etc. are often used in its construction and again, they all beg the question somewhat.

We all know what honesty feels like, but the word has a qualia to it that's just as hard to define as what it means for something to be red or as you suggest, it's up there with words like Truth and Love, I assume you use of capitals is probably referring to whatever we're referring to as the archetype by which we measure all other things by which they apply to.

Without a context, it's honestly (pun intended) difficult to tell if honesty truly is the best policy. To give another counter-example where it wouldn't be the best policy, other than telling your wife she looks fat in a pair of jeans, there's that old ethical dilemma in every philosophy 101 book:

Is it ever ethical to tell a lie?

Usually, the example is Nazi Germany and you're hiding a family of Jews in your house and the Nazis come banging on your door and they ask if you're harboring any Jews.

In the opposite direction of meaning, we have honesty as it applies to the individual and the self. I think you hit upon an important key to the definition in this regard, and I'm glad you mentioned it. Honesty seems entirely dependent on self-awareness in the construction of its definition.

So now, we have to contend with the concept of I and to what degree our concepts of ourselves are true, because if we have the concept that we are honest when we're not...well, that's an entirely different kind of problem. ;)

I think we are only as honest as we are aware that nothing we say and do is ever entirely honest. In the same way that even if we are being truthful, we can never know if we are entirely telling the truth. People like Tolstoy and Nabokov have written about this phenomena extensively, and have remarked in their fiction that even for being as painfully aware as they were, the nature of the ego and fallibility of memory betrays our fidelity to the truth, even without our conscious intent to do so.

This is why I have a problem with identity politics in general, or pointing the finger at specific politicians. On a certain level, they're all the same. They're all a reflection of the collective ego of millions of morons who think they know what's best for other people when they haven't even figured out what's best for themselves.

Excellent! I care about honesty as well. If you are so inclined, may I ask why you care about honesty and how you care to define it?

It's kind of an interesting word. Honesty necessitates sincerity, yet connotates that one is being truthful to some degree.

To what degree do you think one is capable of being honest with oneself? Do you think this has any bearing on the degree with one is honest with others?

To me, the definition of honesty is best summarized by the Shakespeare quote "to thine own self be true"

But not so fast. How can one be honest with oneself if you don't even known if you're being dishonest by accident?

How do you know the values by which you are judging yourself as being honest aren't themselves, dishonest?

Well, at least you're honest. I guess that's something.

I didn't think you would, but I thought I would dumb down the argument to something you might be able to understand.

I apologize for this hubris. I admit it sometimes it gets the better of me when I interact with someone who claims to be intelligent.

Even the best of us are prone to make inaccurate assumptions.

Well, let's break down your argument here if we want to get at the root of your meaning. Let's take your first of your assertions, that Metallica is generic.

I have no idea what you mean by generic because the term generic is well...generic without a reference. Do you mean it's generic like toilet paper is generic? Or like pop music is generic?

Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with over-produced. Again, compared to what? Compared to Miley Cyrus or Weird-Al Yankovic? Compared to Chopin or Beethoven? Compared to live punk music? You're just throwing terms around assuming I'm somehow able to ascertain your meaning by what you think great music is, and it may be what you are comparing it to is also great music by my standards, but you still haven't clarified your standards by which you are making your judgements.

Yes, you can actually change my mind if you explain your reasoning to me. Because even if I won't agree that "Metallica sucks", I would probably agree with "Metallica isn't that great compared to the work of Beethoven, especially when performed by the London Philharmonic"

Argumentation isn't about projecting declarative statements about reality that nobody can possibly disagree with just so I can jack off my ego. I mean, sometimes it is when it's clear that's all the person wants to do, and then sometimes you might do the same thing just to have a bit if of fun and see if you can mock them a bit.

But at its best, I think argumentation is about elucidating a point of view to another, and letting them come to a better understanding of a subject than perhaps what they had previously WITHOUT engaging in the programming of society that tells us what to say and what to think.

I'm sorry to have wasted my keystrokes and time. I'll know better next time. Thanks for your input, citizen.

P.S. Your biggest mistep in this whole exchange is your assertion that Metallica sucks. Compared to what? Where is your evidence?

Here's mine: While Metallica certainly haven't gotten any better over time, the song One is a work of art, illustrating the pointless and meaningful suffering and stupidity of the human condition. Kind of like Reddit!

So if you're saying Metallica sucks in comparison to Reddit, I'd have to disagree. The song One never dissapoints me.

Well, it's also a way to weed out bots and find out who's actually thinking versus who is just parroting something they heard or read.

I'm fucking tired of people blaming Trump. It's so fucking lazy and counter-productive to thought, taunting and mocking is all I have the patience for anymore.

Like, if I'm engaging with someone about what's wrong with the state of politics or the world, I don't want to start the conversation with Trump and pretend if we could only get rid of this one guy, things would be so much better.

It's like taking your 11 year old little sister to a Metallica concert and they start trying to lecture you that the song "One" is really about what the world would be like if Trump was in power.

How else can I respond?

Oops, I thought you were Luce. squints eyes

I'm kind of in the middle of taunting/teaching Luce right now, ala the Whiplash conductor berrates the student method until he understands how much better he could be, and perhaps enjoying it just a little too much. So I will, as you say, have the final word.

Werd.

Come now, that was just ONE of MANY ironies in my last post.

Surely, you can point out three other contradictions, can't you?

I mean, I did them just to mock you. You should feel very special indeed.

No need for the last word, young padawan.

Perhaps a final zinger...

If your arguing with someone who quotes Tigger from Winnie the Pooh in their final retort, do not engage further. This is tantamount to an adult beating up a five year old. No matter how easy it is and how satsifying it may be to that evil little part of your ego, you must resist the urge to do so.

Even if the toddler started the fight, it does not look good when a grown ass adult does the intellectual equivalent of drop-kicking a baby through the goal posts, or dunking a basketball in their face and bouncing the ball off their head and then screaming...

"IN YOUR FACE!"

No matter how amusing it is to me. Because it's not about me, right? :)

You know what it takes to argue meaningfully online and not want to kill yourself?

Brass Balls

Partisan? You think I'm a Republican or voted for DeSantis just because I didn't shit all over him? You think I'm a fan of Trump because I don't curse his name in every political post? :)

You had zingers? Are we speaking the same language here bub, because I didn't see any zingers other than mine when I compared the silly word you invented "side-ism" to something a child might come up with. But for all I know, maybe you are a 10 year old trying to change the world.

If that is the case, good on you kid. pats head

Do you actually respond to arguments or conversation, or are you programmed to spit out canned answers regardless of what you're asked? Don't answer that, that was rhetortical. Instead, could you please answer the following if you're able, to somewhat prove you're not a bot or paid shill. Can you do that? Let's find out...

Here's my first question: What the fuck is "side-ism"? I've been reading and writing for over 40 years and I've never come across this term. Are you trying to "dumb it down" for the kids? Or do you think you're being clever describing non-partisan political problems with funny names that have all the depth of a child writing a novel with a crayon? What's your point here because I'll be damn if I can fathom what the hell you're trying to convey.

Second question: Why are you on the "Orange man bad, Trump evil" train when your argument seems to be based on the REJECTION of taking a side? They're ALL crooked according to you, and yet you single out Trump? Do you understand your own position, or are you just programmed to say "Trump bad" at any oppoturnity as if you're saying something profound?

Feel free to respond to ANY of these questions to prove you're not a shill. Please and thanks.

Yeah, Fauci has been a shill since the 80's. Old news, but then again, so is the Swine Flu vaccine that got cancelled for giving a few hundred people GBS and other neurological disorders due to their being a "concern" for a pandemic.

The problem with this kind of risk modeling is it's garbage in, garbage out. But what we DO KNOW with a HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY about medicine is the following:

1. The same medicine can impact and effect people differently, based on things like age, gender, medical history, genetic predispositions, environmental factors, etc.

2. What is medicine to one person can effectively be poison to another if you DO NOT KNOW how it impacts the AVERAGE person, controlled for all the variables above, and preferably over many replicated long-term studies.

If you want to give EVERYONE the same medicine for the same thing, good fucking luck NOT killing people if you plan to dose them in the billions WITHOUT any long-term studies. It would be MORE statistically improbable you DON'T kill anyone if you did this kind of massive rollout with ANY drug, no matter how safe it was. There are people who overdose on fucking water by hydrating themselves too much and fucking up their blood chemistry. But sure, let's try an entirely new biotechnology and juts roll it out on a scale that breaks every rule in the drug testing book and see what happens!

I'm a peon slaving away at a state job, and it doesn't take a genius of any great weight to calculate even a .01% fatality rate would result in a massive number of deaths.

The "gold standard" is a term used in western medicine that is reserved for drugs, treatments, surgeries, etc, that have a long track record of efficacy and safety. This is the PREFERRED COURSE OF TREATMENT. Unless there is something about a patient's medical history or current condition that prevents using whatever the gold standard is, or there is some extenuating circumstance where using a risky highly experimental procedure or drug is chosen over the gold standard is more of a POTENTIAL benefit to the patient AND THEY CONSENT TO THE RISK, there's STILL NO MEDICAL REASON to choose the risky shot over the gold standard. The doctor can give a patient the CHOICE of the risky treatment if they feel there is the potential of a better outcome, GIVEN they inform the patient of all the risks and shit that could go wrong.

The vaccine rollout is all sorts of fucked up on so many ethical levels and I hope history bears this out when it's all said and done becaues they (related to THEM) KNOWINGLY attempted to hide or miscontrue the vaccine studies to ram their shit through the FDA.

It's like Dr. Fauci is a just a fucked up evil verson of Dr. House, who chooses the most experimental and risky therapies just to see how many patients he can get away with killing. He's like some glorified Dr. Mengele.

Trump is a symptom, not the cause of the clusterfuck. ANY adminitsration would have fast tracked the vaccine because that's what ALL THE EXPERTS were saying and advising the president to do.

As you said, they're all sock puppets, so why would any intelligent being attribute blame and point a finger at a single politician and not be asking who controls the sock puppets? Your first sentence and last sentence seems to be somewhat contradictory?

I mean, that IS the purpose of propaganda. To create PRECISELY this type of cognitive dissonance so you conflate and misperceive the difference between cause and effect, symptom and problem.

I'm from Florida, and I can't say much about DeSantis other than:

1. He didn't fall for the mask propaganda
2. He didn't make vaccines mandatory for employment
3. He didn't make vaccines mandatory for school

Even if he is the next Adolf Hitler, as the left often wants to paint him as, at least he got the above issues right and he didn't care what political points it cost him or how much pressure he was under to cave into federal bullshit. I can respect a man who at least stands up for what he believes in rather than bowing to political pressure when it comes to public health issues. He was right to be skeptical of the efficacy of masks and the safety of the vaccines, as we now know.

I'm a big fan of the scientific method and actual science, which employs SKEPTICISM at every level and rigorous testing before making proclamations of truth. It the case of medicine, this can take years, even decades to properly conduct.

ALL OF THESE RULES WERE TOSSED OUT THE FUCKING WINDOW "CUZ COVID."

Fear and mass paranoia griped everyone and still has its hooks in many, who are now only just beginning to realize the amount of damage these vaccines are causing and are going to continue to cause.

My thoughts are Trump and DeSantis are LOW ON MY SHIT LIST of people that need to be held accountable for the clusterfuck known as the CDC, FDA, and WHO.