Is morality objective or subjective?

[Walker]

...

That's what folks call a back-handed compliment.

It's good to see you're feeling better and reading my words of wisdom that in time will sink through the carapace, and with luck, it will be sooner when the fruits can be enjoyed, rather than later with regret, when life has almost all passed by. Next step, links.



Neither I nor the estimable IC are extremists.

I see the public service of truth as more of a reporting the news in a world that trends towards extremism. Just look at what Hamas did to Israel.

Interesting. I just checked Merriam-Webster online to see if their definition of carapace includes anything of a psychological nature.

I did find the psychology reference, but I had to check anyway, knowing how things change.

And what do you know. I also found a statement by Hassan Abbas in the definition of carapace.

This I why I don’t buy e-books anymore. Perhaps the powers-that-be will find their way to changing print books on the shelves without replacing them, but unlike electronic definitions, that has yet to happen. Perhaps that comes about in the final stage of totalitarianism.

[Lacewing]

reading my words of wisdom...

I see the public service of truth as more of a reporting the news in a world that trends towards extremism. Just look at what Hamas did to Israel.

It is 'the news' you choose to report as 'the' truth, which has demonstrated your extremism. There is truth and wisdom all around! If only more of it was of interest to you, than just a skewed fanatical slant which descends into destructive nonsense.

What Hamas has done is outrageously horrific! What Israel has done is outrageously horrific! What the U.S. has done is outrageously horrific! Are you supporting a 'side' in all of that?

I don't care about your dalliances with Merriam-Webster as you try to sort through your thoughts to make sense. You would have more clarity from using better sources than a dictionary, a nonsensical god, and extremist conservative news sites.

[Lacewing]

I think Gary makes some very good points in his rantings at God, even though he's ranting at something he doesn't believe in.

Logically speaking, only an actor who pretends can rant at something he doesn't believe in.

We're all illogical actors demonstrating we can do all sorts of things.

[Gary Childress]

It's God's fault?

Yes.

No. It's Gary's fault. He has many ways to make his life better. He could be thankful for what he has, instead of spending all his time on resentment over what he doesn't have. He prefers pity, inertia and bitterness. He's willfully making himself the worst Gary he can be.

Gary's his own worst enemy.

Forget it. Continue on in your delusions. They're yours. Enjoy the lies you grew up on.

[Harbal]

(continued)

Re: IC's advice to Gary, and the inner dialogue:

I've found that the inner receiver that we all talk to with our inner dialogue, is a true literalist. And, it's naive. The kind of audience easy to fool on April 1.

It will believe anything you tell it, even lies, because it trusts you. That's right, it trusts you literally and it has no nuance.

If you tell it the truth that you are miserable, it will believe you and believe just because you say it, not because you believe it. It will then proceed to produce thoughts and action that will make you miserable.

So, lie to it. It will believe you. It will cause to choose rightly, if you tell it the right lie.

That's a really good insight. Thanks for that.

Congratulations on finding an ally at last.

Commiserations on its being Walker.

[Atla]

Congratulations on finding an ally at last.

Commiserations on its being Walker.

Oh shit, I hope I'm not the one to blame for that.. recently I reminded Walker that he was once a great Sidekick, maybe he wants to be one once more.

[Harbal]

Congratulations on finding an ally at last.

Commiserations on its being Walker.

Oh shit, I hope I'm not the one to blame for that.. recently I reminded Walker that he was once a great Sidekick, maybe he wants to be one once more.

Don't blame yourself; someone was bound to put up with him eventually.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, Gary's male, able-bodied, white, educated, at least somewhat athletic, at least reasonably intelligent, has a computer, has leisure activities, has an income...

In a sense, that was part of the reason I asked. It seemed like your reaction to him left open the door for others to be justifiably angry at God. Otherwise why justify it with criticism of Gary based on his particular situation. But we'll see where it goes.

Of course, we don't know if he was raped as a child or has a serious brain condition underlying where he is at now. Or that perhaps, given things we don't know, or his particular process, he doesn't need a few more years of raging.

There is no way Gary has anywhere near so many things going against them as these Hondurans had. And yet, they were joyous, kind, loyal and generous. I was privileged -- and humbled -- to have had the chance to walk among them, and have been happy every time I returned.

Right, but so far you aren't really answering the question.

There's any number of spiteful, corrupt, selfish, greedy and debauched types there, and you can smell it in the culture. Nowadays their streets are full of tent-camps, needles and excrement, and still they promote the polititicans and policies who have taken their climate paradise and turned it into an open sewer. But still, there are millionaires and billionaires on every side there, and people keep coming, even thought the native residents are trying to escape.

And the L.A. description, and the rich and powerful example, is not answering the question. Neither the general one not the specific one with the child being sex trafficked.

Now, you ask who has a right to complain, and who does not? Well, those who might claim the right don't; and those who have no justification in doing so, do. What does that tell you?

Except you are overgeneralizing. You really think people who have gone through hell don't complain, as a rule? And that all people who are well off complain? That doesn't fit my experience.

So, again, would it be justified for some people to be angry at God? If not, then why categorize Gary and imply that HE shouldn't be angry at God, because of X, Y, and Z? I mean, at the very least it would be misleading, if you think no one is justified or not exhibitiing some problematic pattern to get into the details of GC's life as you evaluate it. If you do think that some people would be justified or at least would not end up getting criticized by you because of the details of their life, let us know.

Is there a reason you didn't answer any of the questions I asked?

Are there other people who do? Who are they? What are the criteria?
Do children who are sex trafficked, for example?

You managed to talk about people 'who might claim the right'. Which doesn't answer the questions about your judgments.

[Immanuel Can]

You really think people who have gone through hell don't complain, as a rule?

Sure, some do...and especially if this life is all there is, and so they are not able to imagine any value beyond the immediate.

But not all do. And in particular, those that have a better and more lasting hope tend to be much more ready to bear the difficult than those that have no such hope.

Oddly enough, this is what an Atheist like Marx realized. The reason he hated Christianity so much was for this very thing: that it would stop people from raging, and hence from becoming useful revolutionaries. He wanted rage...he wanted rage, and then violent overthrow of the status quo. People who were bravely stoical or bore with courage the lots they had been given were of no use to him.

And now, the Wokies do the same: they strive to convince everybody that they're "oppressed," and that the horizon of their hopes is set at death, so they have to fight furiously for a "justice" that, by their own worldview, they can't even believe is possible. By this means, the Wokies hope to galvanize them to revolution, and then translate their destructive rage into increased power for the elites of media, politics and business. Their rage makes them "useful" to "the cause," maybe, and ultimately much more useful to the George Soroses, WEFs and Bill Gateses of the world; it does not, however, make them lovely, compassionate, generous or kind. And at the end of the day, it makes them pawns for the powerful to manipulate.

As for Gary's right to be "raging," as you term it, I wonder what value you think it would have for him? Even if Gary was a victim of a horrible childhood, followed by a crippling disease, say...what good does raging do for Gary? He shakes his fist at God, and then he dies...and has nothing. Or else, if I'm right, he finds out he was wrong all along, and that he spent all that God had given him on the useless project of raging against a God he didn't even believe in.

Is there a reason you didn't answer any of the questions I asked?

I felt I had. I rather liked my tack on it.

But if you have every freedom to pose a question, then have I not the right to answer it in the way I find most apt? I would think so.

[Immanuel Can]

That's a really good insight. Thanks for that.

Congratulations on finding an ally at last.

Commiserations on its being Walker.

Walker said something that was profoundly true. I give him full credit for that. And I appreciate the opportunity he offered for me to deepen my thinking on that matter.

When you do the same, you can be certain I'll likewise give you credit for it and thank you -- whether you are in agreement with me on all other matters or not.

[Atla]

I've found that the inner receiver that we all talk to with our inner dialogue, is a true literalist. And, it's naive.

What on Earth is an inner receiver?

[Harbal]

That's a really good insight. Thanks for that.

Congratulations on finding an ally at last.

Commiserations on its being Walker.

Walker said something that was profoundly true.

Really? I wonder what came over him.

When you do the same, you can be certain I'll likewise give you credit for it and thank you

And in return I will do my best to never earn your gratitude.

[Harbal]

I've found that the inner receiver that we all talk to with our inner dialogue, is a true literalist. And, it's naive.

What on Earth is an inner receiver?

I don't know what it is, but it's very profound, I'm told.

[Immanuel Can]

And in return I will do my best to never earn your gratitude.

Well, at least you do entertain me.

[Atla]

I've found that the inner receiver that we all talk to with our inner dialogue, is a true literalist. And, it's naive.

What on Earth is an inner receiver?

I don't know what it is, but it's very profound, I'm told.

Is it some kind of programmable inner self, in addition to the outer self? So Walker is two people and IC is also two people?