Corporation Socialism

[Alexis Jacobi]

Holy hancheros that Presidente song rocks... I gotta play something over it. Hold on I'll be back later.

You might appreciate this Rubén Blades tune: Tiburon.

The image of a shark cruising his territory is the metaphor employed throughout the song.

No good English translation. You’ll have to learn Spanish. Will “Mary” help?

[promethean75]

Done!

https://youtube.com/shorts/seaP_AxwGt8

Snare drum as high conga
Toms as mid and low timbales
High hat closed as clave
High hat open as maraca
Ride cybal as cowbell
Bass drum as bass drum (tho I'm just counting with my foot, really)
Crash cymbal as Colombian DEA agent police whistle

[Alexis Jacobi]

My high hat off to you …

[promethean75]

Thank you meester Jacobi.

[Belinda]

You've always been a sucker for a harpy with a leftist limp.
Unfortunately women with lefty handicaps be extra crazy, bro.
All motherly to victims.

What else would you have? Barbarism?

[Pistolero]

In your good versus evil world, the only options are Christian ethics or Barbarism.
In your mind morality was invented by the Jews, and men had no decency before their Noahide laws.

But, even beasts have compassion and can exhibit love and sympathy and altruism....
But you want herd psychology....all-inclusivity. Universal love...slave ethics.

[Immanuel Can]

But, even beasts have compassion and can exhibit love and sympathy and altruism....

Do they? Do we know so much? Do we know why beast do what they do, or what part of their behaviour is mere programming, instinct or environmental conditioning?

For sure, they don't do things on any principle we know. They don't have an ethics. They don't theorize, or engage in metacognition about what they should do in future cases. We don't even know what emotions or urges they have. And their "compassion" is of a very limited sort, if that's what it is: wolves have no compassion for caribou, nor lions for hyenas, nor one monkey troup for a rival monkey troup, even.

I think we're guessing too much if we think beasts have any such thing. As Thomas Nagel so pithily put it, we don't know what it's like to be a bat. And the same is true for any other animal. We only know what we do...the rest may well be no more than sentimental anthropomorphizing of beastly instinct.

[Pistolero]

Do you not witness altruism in animals?
I do.
No guessing...
We see it in nature.
Tolerance, kindness, self-sacrifice, love, compassion..
Get your head out of your scriptures and watch a documentary, or go to the country.
There you'll see all aspects of man, performed by non-human animals.

Men simply converted the behavior to words....categories.

What does that tell you?
That god is not necessary for moral behaviors to emerge. They emerge because they offer an advantage.
God is used on manimals, to keep them on the straight and narrow, when men make amendments to moral behaviors....like monogamy.
Here is where you need the metaphysical carrot and stick to discipline those who cannot control themselves.

How many of you are truly Christian, if you need a threat and a promise to remain decent?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you not witness altruism in animals?

No. I see herd behaviour. And I see protectiveness of others, sometimes. I have no way of judging whether that behaviour comes from an emotion, or just from instinct and programming. Nor does anybody.

How many of you are truly Christian, if you need a threat and a promise to remain decent?

Well, that's a question loaded with undemonstrable assumptions, for sure. First, how do you know what "decent" means? Secondly, what makes you think that "a threat and a promise" are the motivations of this "decency"? And finally, how do you know what "truly Christian" means, given that absent God, there are no objective moral values, and hence, "decency" is an arbitrary and indefensible value judgment, rather than a description of anything real?

And yet, you say you seem to know so much about why animals do what they do; how is it that you know nothing about so many of your fellow humans, apparently?

[Pistolero]

No. I see herd behaviour. And I see protectiveness of others, sometimes. I have no way of judging whether that behaviour comes from an emotion, or just from instinct and programming. Nor does anybody.

Really. So you do not use yourself to understand what you perceive in another?

How many of you are truly Christian, if you need a threat and a promise to remain decent?

Well, that's a question loaded with undemonstrable assumptions, for sure. First, how do you know what "decent" means? [/quote]
Isn't it to treat others as you would like them to treat you?

Secondly, what makes you think that "a threat and a promise" are the motivations of this "decency"?

It certainly is for Christians...and you seem to be a Christian.
If a man need a heaven and a hell to be kind, then is he truly good?

And finally, how do you know what "truly Christian" means, given that absent God, there are no objective moral values, and hence, "decency" is an arbitrary and indefensible value judgment, rather than a description of anything real?

Ha, there it is.
No morals without god.

But I just told you that animals are kind, altruistic, compassionate....do you need me to tell you what advantage there is in being so?

No, decency is a matter of life or death, if you've belong to a species that has naturally selected a cooperative survival and reproductive strategy.
You know all that Dawkins stuff about selfish gene?
Well, selfish memes....A dogma, like all three Abrahamic dogmas, can use individuals as their method of propagation.

And yet, you say you seem to know so much about why animals do what they do; how is it that you know nothing about so many of your fellow humans, apparently?

Wait, what?
Humans are not animals?
Are they spiritual beings?
Are they the chosen?

I think I know more about humans than you can ever know.
I do not idealize them....
I know why you need a god. I know why you cannot cope, with existence, without a god.
I know you doubt if you could remain decent, without a god.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I see herd behaviour. And I see protectiveness of others, sometimes. I have no way of judging whether that behaviour comes from an emotion, or just from instinct and programming. Nor does anybody.

Really. So you do not use yourself to understand what you perceive in another?

When "another" isn't even human, than anybody who does is merely anthropomorphizing -- attributing human emotions to something that's obviously not human. Until somebody knows what the existential states of an emu, or ocelot, or whale are, the rest will be guessing.

How many of you are truly Christian, if you need a threat and a promise to remain decent?

Well, that's a question loaded with undemonstrable assumptions, for sure. First, how do you know what "decent" means?

Isn't it to treat others as you would like them to treat you?[/quote] That's a Christian moral principle alright: but if you're not a Christian, why should you believe it to be "decent" or even "wise"? Nietzsche thought it was "slave morality," just as you said.

Secondly, what makes you think that "a threat and a promise" are the motivations of this "decency"?

It certainly is for Christians...

It isn't actually. But I understand the mistake: most people who are not Christians seem to operate by crude calculation of rewards and punishments, so it's a natural mistake.

And finally, how do you know what "truly Christian" means, given that absent God, there are no objective moral values, and hence, "decency" is an arbitrary and indefensible value judgment, rather than a description of anything real?

Ha, there it is.
No morals without god.

Almost right. "No justification for morals without God" is the argument. Anybody can accidentally do the right thing; but how can they know whether or not it's the right thing, when "right thing" is not, in their estimation, even objective?

But I just told you that animals are kind, altruistic, compassionate....

...and also vicious, and cruel, and canibalistic, and predatory...so what tells you which of their behaviours are "moral," when they do all of them frequently?

You know all that Dawkins stuff about selfish gene?

Oh, yes...Dawkins, and his "gene" that has volition and moral awareness. Yes, he's a lovely writer of creative fiction. Have you followed his recent trail of self-embarassments and reconsidering? It's quite telling, really.

I think I know more about humans than you can ever know.

Well, that's certainly a confident claim. Can you support it?

[Pistolero]

No. I see herd behaviour. And I see protectiveness of others, sometimes. I have no way of judging whether that behaviour comes from an emotion, or just from instinct and programming. Nor does anybody.

Really. So you do not use yourself to understand what you perceive in another?[/quote]
When "another" isn't even human, than anybody who does is merely anthropomorphizing -- attributing human emotions to something that's obviously not human. Until somebody knows what the existential states of an emu, or ocelot, or whale are, the rest will be guessing. [/quote]
In this case I am animalizing emotions.
I do not believe, like you, that other animals, with sophisticated nervous systems, experience no emotions.
Emotions are nature's way of making reactions more efficient. Automated reaction.

That's a Christian moral principle alright: but if you're not a Christian, why should you believe it to be "decent" or even "wise"? Nietzsche thought it was "slave morality," just as you said.

Because morality was not invented by the Jews.
Slave morality is inclusive. Herd instincts.

I do not need to be a christian, arrogant man, to be kind.
Decency was not invented by your god.

Almost right. "No justification for morals without God" is the argument. Anybody can accidentally do the right thing; but how can they know whether or not it's the right thing, when "right thing" is not, in their estimation, even objective?

"Accidentally"?!!
Ha!!!
This guy is amazing.
Am I "accidentally" being respectful to you, when i am repressing my true opinions?

Oh, yes...Dawkins, and his "gene" that has volition and moral awareness. Yes, he's a lovely writer of creative fiction. Have you followed his recent trail of self-embarassments and reconsidering? It's quite telling, really.

Oh my, you are a fanatic aren't you?
Another zealot.
What separates you from the Jews, ethnically slcleasing Semitc Palestinians, and Muslims, massacring infidels, is opportunity and desperation.
If you ever felt that your superstition was threatened, you would soon find excuses not to be decent.
That manimal would come forth.
You already admitted that you cannot be decent unless it was accidental, or because god told you.
The moment I exposed the self-serving motives of morals and ethics, you recoiled defensively.

Again...no god necessary for life to behave in what is called moral ways: kindness, tolerance, altruism, compassion, self-sacrifice etc.
It's all part of natural selection.

Well, that's certainly a confident claim. Can you support it?

I Already have and will continue to do with my every post.

Like I know that your decency is based on threats and rewards and you would revert to your true nature if you were ever convinced that you're god was a lie.
Let's hope that you never have the will to break from that metaphysical crutch.

[Immanuel Can]

Really. So you do not use yourself to understand what you perceive in another?

When "another" isn't even human, than anybody who does is merely anthropomorphizing -- attributing human emotions to something that's obviously not human. Until somebody knows what the existential states of an emu, or ocelot, or whale are, the rest will be guessing.

In this case I am animalizing emotions.

Anthropomorphizing meand projecting what a human feels onto entities or objects that are significantly unlike humans. It can be right, it can be wrong; but we never know which it is.

That's a Christian moral principle alright: but if you're not a Christian, why should you believe it to be "decent" or even "wise"? Nietzsche thought it was "slave morality," just as you said.

Because morality was not invented by the Jews.

If it was "invented" then there's no justification for why anybody has to believe in it or think he/she has a duty to prefer it. That's Neitzsche's point.

I do not need to be a christian, arrogant man, to be kind.

No, but you need a belief in a Supreme Lawgiver in order to think you have any justification to think being kind is more moral or "better" than being cruel. Nietzsche also saw this, as did his followers, one of whom famously aimed at creating a "race of young men" who are "imperious, relentless and cruel." (His words.)

Decency was not invented by your god.

Well, you don't know that, do you? You would like to think it, sure; but then, you can't find any way to prove that "decency" is a morally virtuous thing, if there's no deeper, more authoritative and ultimate code behind your preference for it. And you can't prove to somebody who doesn't care for "decency" that they should care for it, or justify locking up people who fail to behave "decently."

Almost right. "No justification for morals without God" is the argument. Anybody can accidentally do the right thing; but how can they know whether or not it's the right thing, when "right thing" is not, in their estimation, even objective?

"Accidentally"?!!
Ha!!!
This guy is amazing.
Am I "accidentally" being respectful to you, when i am repressing my true opinions?

I don't know, do I? Maybe it is an accident. Maybe it's uncertainty. Maybe it's fear. Maybe it's habit. You'll have to tell me why you're doing it.

But what you won't be able to do is explain to somebody else why they ought to do it. According to the worldview without God, nobody has an obligation toward self-restraint.

Oh, yes...Dawkins, and his "gene" that has volition and moral awareness. Yes, he's a lovely writer of creative fiction. Have you followed his recent trail of self-embarassments and reconsidering? It's quite telling, really.

Oh my, you are a fanatic aren't you?

Not at all. Go and read about Dawkins' recent debacles. Read about them from secular sources. Here's the one you're going to like best, in fact: https://breakpoint.org/richard-dawkins- ... christian/

What separates you from the Jews...

I'm not Jewish. But I like Jews. I also like Arabs, Indians, Africans and South Americans. But you don't like Jews?

The moment I exposed the self-serving motives of morals and ethics, you recoiled defensively.

Boy, did you ever read that wrong. I don't feel defensive at all, actually. I feel very much "on the front foot," to use the old cricket expression. I know you won't be able to justify even one moral precept if you try to predicate it on some version of secularism or Atheism, in fact. So thank you, but you've no need to worry.

Again...no god necessary for life to behave in what is called moral ways: kindness, tolerance, altruism, compassion, self-sacrifice etc.

But you can't justify any of them. You can't show that they're duties, or that they ought to be done, or that they're somehow "better" than somebody who chooses unkindness, intolerance, solipsism, hard-heartedness and selfishness. There are no moral duties in a secular world; only options, and every option is the moral equivalent of every other option.

Well, that's certainly a confident claim. Can you support it?

I know that your decency is based on threats and rewards...

Well, that's a poor start: you got that wrong from the beginning. You don't know any such thing, of course. And even you would have to admit that you don't even know me, so you're in no position at all to know why I say or do what I say or do. But I know of no Christians who would agree with you that that is why they choose to be moral. Maybe you need to get out a little more.

But this is the problem with somebody who casually projects his own emotions and motives onto animals, or even onto other people; he's almost always bound to be wrong, and he's never going to know if he's even accidentally and occasionally right. He's just playing guessing games.

[Pistolero]

When "another" isn't even human, than anybody who does is merely anthropomorphizing -- attributing human emotions to something that's obviously not human. Until somebody knows what the existential states of an emu, or ocelot, or whale are, the rest will be guessing.

In this case I am animalizing emotions.

Anthropomorphizing meand projecting what a human feels onto entities or objects that are significantly unlike humans. It can be right, it can be wrong; but we never know which it is.

No shit...
I speak fluent Greek

No, but you need a belief in a Supreme Lawgiver in order to think you have any justification to think being kind is more moral or "better" than being cruel. Nietzsche also saw this, as did his followers, one of whom famously aimed at creating a "race of young men" who are "imperious, relentless and cruel." (His words.)

People like you need it.
Not people like I.

A lie is what the mediocre masses need. I know.
But we are not discussing what is a useful lie, but what is true.
And what is true is that morality needs no god.
Only the enforcement of amendments that go against human nature require lies.

I don't know, do I? Maybe it is an accident. Maybe it's uncertainty. Maybe it's fear. Maybe it's habit. You'll have to tell me why you're doing it.

There's always a motive. Always.

I'm not Jewish. But I like Jews. I also like Arabs, Indians, Africans and South Americans. But you don't like Jews?

You are a Jew, and you don't know it.
Must I dislike to critique?
My opinions are not founded on emotions, like yours.

Fear is a prime motivator for believing a lie.
Justify?
I already have.

Morality is not a theory in text. It is a behavior we can witness in many species.
Social species that use cooperative survival strategies.

Justify your god, ....refer me to more texts.
These words tell you that a god cares about you....and has created rules to protect you.
You are so precious you must be preserved for an eternity.
What arrogance, masked in feigned humility....like your fake decency.
A manimal believing he is something special...

Well, that's a poor start: you got that wrong from the beginning. You don't know any such thing, of course. And even you would have to admit that you don't even know me, so you're in no position at all to know why I say or do what I say or do. But I know of no Christians who would agree with you that that is why they choose to be moral. Maybe you need to get out a little more.

You expose yourself through your choices....your beliefs....the words you use.

But this is the problem with somebody who casually projects his own emotions and motives onto animals, or even onto other people; he's almost always bound to be wrong, and he's never going to know if he's even accidentally and occasionally right. He's just playing guessing games.

Yes...guessing games.


After 20+ years of debating your kind, I know when I am wasting my time on the brain-dead.
Fanatic.

Ta, Ta,

[Immanuel Can]

I speak fluent Greek

Well, that's a good thing.

No, but you need a belief in a Supreme Lawgiver in order to think you have any justification to think being kind is more moral or "better" than being cruel. Nietzsche also saw this, as did his followers, one of whom famously aimed at creating a "race of young men" who are "imperious, relentless and cruel." (His words.)

People like you need it.
Not people like I.

And yet, people like you cannot give a single moral precept that secularism necessitates or justifies. So apparently, you're "running on empty" when it comes from being able to say why X or Y is moral.

Your personal behaviour might be fine; but the secular rationale is vacuous. It has nothing to tell us about morality.

I don't know, do I? Maybe it is an accident. Maybe it's uncertainty. Maybe it's fear. Maybe it's habit. You'll have to tell me why you're doing it.

There's always a motive. Always.

Sure. But you have no way of knowing what that motive is.

I'm not Jewish. But I like Jews. I also like Arabs, Indians, Africans and South Americans. But you don't like Jews?

You are a Jew, and you don't know it.

I'm flattered. Unfortunately, it's not true. I'm as Gentile as you.

Justify your god,

Give me your test. I'll see if I can meet it for you.

Well, that's a poor start: you got that wrong from the beginning. You don't know any such thing, of course. And even you would have to admit that you don't even know me, so you're in no position at all to know why I say or do what I say or do. But I know of no Christians who would agree with you that that is why they choose to be moral. Maybe you need to get out a little more.

You expose yourself through your choices....your beliefs....the words you use.

I call "bluff" on that one.