The morality of God is power

[Black Rose]

Sounds like eugenics. Killing these obvious sociopaths just means the intelligent wolfs in sheep's clothing breed more.

The asshole is always singled out first in the tribe.

A tribe full of assholes does not survive.

It's just evolution.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Sounds like eugenics. Killing these obvious sociopaths just means the intelligent wolfs in sheep's clothing breed more.

The asshole is always singled out first in the tribe.

A tribe full of assholes does not survive.

It's just evolution.

Yes, the idea of the lone wolf is a fantasy. Humans are more complicated though.

You must cooperate with the pack or you will be ostracized and be in more danger. You make it sound like there is a static line, but clearly we are happy to elect a sociopathic leader when we are scared because we think they can get things done. We love playing with fire, sociopath or not.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The asshole is always singled out first in the tribe.

Proof?

 

[ZenRaiden]

we are happy to elect a sociopathic

Never heard this one before. Proof?

 

[ZenRaiden]

This faith you speak of is indeed powerful,

What there is some power output?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Morality is all about how you "Feel".

Really?

 

[ZenRaiden]

I gather that a lot more people in Western countries make the effort to learn Elvish than make the effort to learn Biblical Hebrew.

Whole point I was making, is exactly what you say.
So either you are not explaining your position or I am not explaining mine.

Except that LOTR is quite literally fiction, and even the most diehard of LOTR fans could not deny that Tolkien himself would say he made it up. You can't test it against reality, and if you did, the results are meaningless, because it's pure fiction.

You'd be better off trying to discover if there really is someone like Rick Sanchez who has a portal gun to parallel universes. At least the idea of a multiverse is actually based on physics. So there is a possibility that someone might have invented a device that transports people to parallel universes.

SO you agree we should not stick to fiction. Good Lord this is progress is it not?
Did we actually arrive on to the future?

I brought up Nietzsche not to endorse him.
But his points were pretty strong on point in some key instances.
Vague notions of morality are nothing, but guidelines.
If we mean morality it means it is good, regardless what anyone thinks.

To me morality means, when God is watching, and all knowing, it means what you do is right, even if everyone disagrees, even if hell fire falls from the sky, even if you fail, the meaning of fail means you did something immoral etc. but its wrong regardless what anyone says, or does, or what is trendy or what is written in a book or what a psychologist says, or what an astrophysicists says or what a old alien rock says.

It must be true, to reality.
Anything short of that is ethics and bias, and ethical bias, and opinion and whatever the strongest decide to impose on the weak or anything like coercion or imposing of other peoples will onto other people.

So when Nietzsche points out that Bible is vague with very arbitrary sayings that can be interpreted, we ought to do what God knows is best.

Which then leads to questions like what is good or bad and what is evil and right or wrong.

Which leads back to the base of what are our assumptions about reality.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

we are happy to elect a sociopathic

Never heard this one before. Proof?

Admittingly that is from anecdote and shallow observation of trends. Trump is a big strong man, America is falling behind, we need to make America great again.

You can use the same scheme for Hitler or Bolschcavicts.

I'm am not privy to specific data points that will lead to such things. Political analysis, like economics is more of an art.

*oops pre-mature post

This faith you speak of is indeed powerful,

What there is some power output?

People gamble for a reason don't they? The idea that God might show some sort of favor and I might get a blackjack or whatever is very attractive. That is heavily exploited.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Admittingly that is from anecdote and shallow observation of trends. Trump is a big strong man, America is falling behind, we need to make America great again.

You can use the same scheme for Hitler or Bolschcavicts.

I'm am not privy to specific data points that will lead to such things. Political analysis, like economics is more of an art.

*oops pre-mature post

No its not shallow. Its just that I doubt people were happy voting Trump.
They just thought its lesser evil.
I mean Hillary Clinton is called Hawkish and managed to upset half the US population by calling them deplorable and then acting like she is innocent.
Hillary Clinton is no angel. Neither was Trump.
Her acting like she is something more because she is polished simply did not make anyone buy into it.
For all we know she could have been far worse.
Democrats buy into moral high horsing too much. Its cheap way to show the world they are better by no virtue other than few phrases.
Bernie on other hand imho would be easier winner. His platform actually had strong foundation for supporting working class and he had strong arguments.
People would be much happier voting him, than Hillaries feminism.

 

[ZenRaiden]

People gamble for a reason don't they? The idea that God might show some sort of favor and I might get a blackjack or whatever is very attractive. That is heavily exploited.

The number of people gambling is low or high depending on risk.
High risk takers will gamble more. But they are few.
They are called high rollers in gamble speak if I remember correctly.
Most people are risk averse.
Its why casinos make money by making people throw in small change like quarters and dimes.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Admittingly that is from anecdote and shallow observation of trends. Trump is a big strong man, America is falling behind, we need to make America great again.

You can use the same scheme for Hitler or Bolschcavicts.

I'm am not privy to specific data points that will lead to such things. Political analysis, like economics is more of an art.

*oops pre-mature post

No its not shallow. Its just that I doubt people were happy voting Trump.
They just thought its lesser evil.
I mean Hillary Clinton is called Hawkish and managed to upset half the US population by calling them deplorable and then acting like she is innocent.
Hillary Clinton is no angel. Neither was Trump.
Her acting like she is something more because she is polished simply did not make anyone buy into it.
For all we know she could have been far worse.
Democrats buy into moral high horsing too much. Its cheap way to show the world they are better by no virtue other than few phrases.
Bernie on other hand imho would be easier winner. His platform actually had strong foundation for supporting working class and he had strong arguments.
People would be much happier voting him, than Hillaries feminism.

Right, I guess the toothless thing to say would be "when people feel desperate, they make poor decisions". That leaves out the context, and how the powers that be might mechanistically limit the decisions that people can make.

On the other hand I don't really see the aristocracy as being all powerful either. If they are concerned , why would not the rest of the world be?
Rendom baseless assumption I had prepandemic: seeing I was in America, I knew that my very Red libertarian state would refuse to do anything until someone with money told them to do so, and that the lockdown would only last until they figured out how to profit from the situation.

People gamble for a reason don't they? The idea that God might show some sort of favor and I might get a blackjack or whatever is very attractive. That is heavily exploited.

The number of people gambling is low or high depending on risk.
High risk takers will gamble more. But they are few.
They are called high rollers in gamble speak if I remember correctly.
Most people are risk averse.
Its why casinos make money by making people throw in small change like quarters and dimes.

True. Then again it is a relativistic blackhole we're walking into. The way most people do their everyday shopping can be seen as a risky practice. Younger people have less to lose and more hunger to learn. I would argue that with any particularly thing, people's appetite for risk is very flexible depending on their impression of the risk and what they have to gain.

Risk aversion is a thing, but so is sunk cost. Something is on sale right now, later it might not be.

My original point being, is that when you anthropomorphize reality, it can be a great source of a lot of things. Not all deviant like gambling, but I guess on some level it adds a comfort of predictability even in spontaneous interactions.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Right, I guess the toothless thing to say would be "when people feel desperate, they make poor decisions". That leaves out the context, and how the powers that be might mechanistically limit the decisions that people can make.

People don't make bad decisions. They had no say in who gets to the top mostly it was done behind closed doors, by political elites. Bernie got sidelined once he did his thing distracting people from potential enemies.
Its just the system works the way it works. Its far from perfect.
Marx was not joking when he talked about class struggle.
Classes are like ponzi schemes.
Only we accept it as natural order.
Elites with no responsibility are in charge. If they fuck up they have little to no culpability that alone is wrong on moral grounds.
Yet we accept it.

So we aren't even talking about wolfs. More like slaughter house where domestic animals come to be butchered.
Systematically.
The world is predictable today, much more so than jungle.

Our brains are wired for unpredictable world.

For instance the smartest person in casino is the owner, not the people working for him or the people playing the game.

IF you are smart enough to count cards the owner is smart enough to kick you out.

Risk aversion is a thing, but so is sunk cost. Something is on sale right now, later it might not be.

The risk today is low, but only if you live in a world where everyone knows how to avoid risk.
If roads were full of risk taking drivers then number of accidents would be sky high.
The predictability of rules on roads is what makes driving safe.
Civilization is predictable. Even when its going in really wrong direction we can see it miles away.
We humans just have a tendency to think the risk is minor when things get bit chaotic, but realistically when things get tiny bit chaotic all the concepts that work in predictable environment go in way of DODO and in comes no predictability.
But since we are hardwired to think in the now, we get shot down by simple lack of order.
The rich know this. Their game is always long game.
Poor think in the now. Because that is the only value they know how to make true.
Rich people live in future, because that is a value that is 1000 times if not more efficient.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

People don't make bad decisions. They had no say in who gets to the top mostly it was done behind closed doors, by political elites. Bernie got sidelined once he did his thing distracting people from potential enemies.
Its just the system works the way it works. Its far from perfect.
Marx was not joking when he talked about class struggle.
Classes are like ponzi schemes.
Only we accept it as natural order.
Elites with no responsibility are in charge. If they fuck up they have little to no culpability that alone is wrong on moral grounds.
Yet we accept it.

I don't think Trump was preordained by anyone. Maybe some factions of the upper class perhaps. I'm not so sure that they were totally in control of the narrative that propelled him to his candidacy. It is well known that the GOP, before and after, didn't really want to associate with Trump because they knew he would be bad for them in the long run.

Many that did want him knew that he would be easy to exploit because any narcissist who has something to prove (as anyone who had their wealth given to them) is easy to manipulate. Did it work out for them? I'm sure it did everywhere he had business interests.


Bernie actively chose the difficult path as a message to the youth. I personally liked it and I voted for him in the primaries, even knowing he was going to lose. You can't make yourself too far left in America. It has never worked, I don't think ever during any political campaign. He made a stupid bet and lost, and the Dems exploited this every step of the way.

Not that they wouldn't have tried to stop him anyways. It's just his approach just seems delusional tbh. He must not have understood why Trumps rhetoric got him so far.

Risk aversion is a thing, but so is sunk cost. Something is on sale right now, later it might not be.

The risk today is low, but only if you live in a world where everyone knows how to avoid risk.
If roads were full of risk taking drivers then number of accidents would be sky high.
The predictability of rules on roads is what makes driving safe.
Civilization is predictable. Even when its going in really wrong direction we can see it miles away.
We humans just have a tendency to think the risk is minor when things get bit chaotic, but realistically when things get tiny bit chaotic all the concepts that work in predictable environment go in way of DODO and in comes no predictability.
But since we are hardwired to think in the now, we get shot down by simple lack of order.
The rich know this. Their game is always long game.
Poor think in the now. Because that is the only value they know how to make true.
Rich people live in future, because that is a value that is 1000 times if not more efficient.

There are reasons for this poor vs rich dynamic no? When you are raised in a more unstable environment, you are more often a fool if you depend on predictable things.

Conversely the rich set the tone and pace of important environments, ironing out the folds of their world and pushing them along complicated problems to other people.

This graph is too charitable to be honest, or rather, when you look at Plutocrats who aren't in the labor force at all, they don't really need to have any skills at all besides human skills.

They have the luxury of thinking about things in an environment that is stable, meanwhile poor person has to take up a job that is good enough to sustain themselves and their family. Non-negotiable, thinking in the future, no matter how much you do, will never match up to someone that doesn't need to build up an array of several other skills.

Without digressing further, my point is that everything can be framed as a risk. You can say that the immediate risk of an action is low, but it could turn out to have massive ramifications. Opportunity cost as a concept I think helps illustrate this but for example:

I can choose to cut accros grass on a walk to and from work or walk on the pavement around the grass. I have the opportunity to do so, no one will stop me. Maybe I save 2 seconds each time.

So 4 seconds a day. In a year assuming I work 5 days a week, and two weeks a year off.

I could save 16 minutes of my life by cutting across that grass in a year. You may not see it as a risk I guess, but I don't think it's a silly idea at all when in 10 years I could have an extra 7 days of my life that you don't. Too risky for me I don't know. Is this childish or is it just logical? I mean time is money right lmao?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Nah that grass had it coming for being in my way. * r/Desirepath on reddit is a wonderful place

 

[ZenRaiden]

This graph is too charitable to be honest, or rather, when you look at Plutocrats who aren't in the labor force at all, they don't really need to have any skills at all besides human skills.

I often wonder if they actually have any people skills though.

People skills are the new hot trend, but realistically that comes from cheap salesmen ship.

Americans are like Japanese, they find a new word for something ordinary, and act like its the new best thing.

Trolling for example used be called being a jerk or asshole.
Nowadays its science that explain how 13 years old can become the next level Machiavelli.

Even in psychology reading psychology lots of things can be explained rather simply.
For instance libido is just want for sex.
Inferiority complex is just having weaker disposition.
Superiority complex ergo compensation is just maladjusted in common sense speak, which is just lack of experience in many cases, or lacking perspective.
But who does not.
Superego is just hive mind or common sense.
Ego is the thing you want.
Id is just instinct.

Neurodiverse is just thinking differently.
Productivity is just well done work.
Time management is just doing things on time.
Creativity is just doing something new.
Big Data = this is a computer and I am too old to know what that means.
etc.
Sophisticated language often obscures the bottom line.

I could save 16 minutes of my life by cutting across that grass in a year. You may not see it as a risk I guess, but I don't think it's a silly idea at all when in 10 years I could have an extra 7 days of my life that you don't. Too risky for me I don't know. Is this childish or is it just logical? I mean time is money right lmao?

But imagine you go through divorce or better yet have to settle a petty dispute in court with your neighbor who won't budge and drags you for years through court system.
Imagine how much simple shit can go wrong and detract your 4 seconds.
You are though right even few little things can add up to bigger whole.
That is what I would simply call building up leverage.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I can choose to cut across grass on a walk to and from work or walk on the pavement around the grass. I have the opportunity to do so, no one will stop me. Maybe I save 2 seconds each time.

I think the biggest problem with human intellect is you cannot tell how productive you are.
For instance is this forum just chill and talking or are we actually productive.
The problem is, that its hard to tell unless you can tie something intellectual to a physical outcome.
Many rationalist have this mindset, that outcome is the only measure of intellect.
Which practically is true.
Its just that often times we don't have nerve receptors telling us what is good or bad.
Merely crude emotions.
But emotions are fairly limited.
For example they really can't help people with math.
They can't make you write a good book, or succeed in any intellectual field.
Emotions just give us rough vectors GOOD vs BAD.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think men had to invent God just so they would not have to admit that is really women in power.
The problem with that is most of those dudes, were just hermits or schizoid.

Nature rules all and we the people are more under control of nature than some infantile fantasy.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Well, let's not be too hasty, cooperation kinda put women in this position if you think about it. Once that gap was made certain things started happening. Not everyone can be the queen bee. Lol yeah Beyonce might be the exception, but women have ambitions too.

 

[Black Rose]

Hmm...

I have never really had God speak to me. I never felt comfort from it.

I just cannot move away from agnosticism to atheism.

On a scale <Theist --- I am here --- Agnostic --- ? --- Atheist>

 

[EndogenousRebel]

"Historically" speaking I don't think you can lift a "curse" from God(s). You can only make it better. Or they decide to have mercy on you, but that's whenever they feel like it or something.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Well, let's not be too hasty, cooperation kinda put women in this position if you think about it. Once that gap was made certain things started happening. Not everyone can be the queen bee. Lol yeah Beyonce might be the exception, but women have ambitions too.

All I wanted to say is that lets be real. If a women has your joystick in her hand she probably has more control over you than any God ever will.
Yes people may act like God puts things in motion, but Id say if that were more true about God than women then why is objectively our society still structured with accord to mating rituals and sex.
Why are for example Christians or societies so obscenely obsessed about who bangs who. The answer is simple - its in our nature.
That goes for all except the complete psycho people out there who can't even fathom a platonic connection. But those people are like 1 percent and even those bang women for a reason.

People say they are moved by God and stuff, really?
What move except to and fro church is there?

With few exception like that guy building a church all by himself everyday, and lets be honest he is probs autistic there aren't many people out there who get to motion when God is invoked.

Or lets put it differently. Tell people that if they believe in God they have to work 12 hours a week for Church and see how quickly attendance drops.