Blackpill [Hard To Swallow Edition] Logic And Morality Are Completely Seperate (In Fact They Are Often Diametrically Opposed)

[BlkPillPres]

You would think that something this simple would not need to be explained, but you'd be underestimating the level of cognitive dissonance of the average user on this site, who wants to stand on both sides and classify themselves as logical and moral, when in reality, both stances couldn't be further apart

In a lot of scenarios they are at odds with eachother and you either prove yourself to be a "truly moral" person or a "truly logical" person

The average person will often choose a moral stance over a logical one, and that by default makes them illogical, you can't have it both ways

Do emotional/moral people make logical decisions, yes, but its circumstantial for them, it isn't their "core worldview", the world of emotions and subjectivity is their "core worldview", so when a REAL DECISION (life or death scenario, life changing circumstances, etc) in life has to be made when they choose between whats logical and whats moral, they choose morality

For a logical person its the inverse, they'll make moral decisions based on circumstances for the sake of keeping up appearances, not even because they feel anything about if its "right" or "wrong", but when it comes down to a REAL DECISION they will always choose the logical choice despite how it affects others, because they aren't influenced by emotions



MORALITY IS NOT LOGICAL

MORALITY BY DEFINITION AND ALL KNOWN CONTEXT IS ABOUT EMOTIONAL APPEAL (SUBJECTIVE IDEALS NOT OBJECTIVE REALITY)

They are two completely separate things

You can be logical or a moralist, but you can't be both, because morality is at odds with logic

If you find a brief case filled with millions of dollars in an alleyway next to a dead body:

The LOGICAL thing to do is to take the money and dispose of the briefcase far away from where you love

The MORAL thing to do is to stand there and call the police

One has to forsake certain morals to make certain logical decisions and one has to forsake cold hard logic under certain circumstances in order to remain moral

They do not work in congruence with eachother, they are diametrically opposed

Moralfags need to stop FALSELY CONFLATING logic and morality, logic in its purest form IS IMMORAL, logic has nothing to do with subjective concepts like "right" or "wrong"



Let me put it this way in an abstract sense, think of 1+2=3

Morality is contemplating whether 2 consented to be added to 1 (in reference to rape)

Morality is contemplating whether 3 wished to exist in its state and if it was wrong to create it (in reference to giving birth to a child that would have a known defect)

LOGIC IS MERELY STATING THAT 1+2=3, NO JUDGEMENTS ARE MADE, ACTIONS ARE MERELY OBSERVED AND OBSERVATIONS ARE REPORTED

 

[BITG]

Low IQ

 

[Deleted member 19546]

Low IQ

 

[Deleted member 19546]

The MORAL thing to do is to stand there and call the police

Not necessarily, depends on the moral framework, of which there are many.
Low IQ post

 

[Deleted member 22572]

I swear down you have a thread similar to this in must read content.

 

[mylifeistrash]

Morality can only exist when you don't have too many serious problems and you had a soft upbringing.

There's no morality in a shithole country where you fight to survive.

I know this isn't the point of the post, just adding my $0.02

 

[BlkPillPres]

Not necessarily, depends on the moral framework, of which there are many.

1. So what you're saying is morality is completely subjective............ which is exactly my point, its not logical (objective)

2. Give me an example of such a framework in which stealing money off of a corpse that has an obvious criminal source is MORAL?

Go ahead, try and make the bullshit you just said make sense lol

Dude quit while you're behind

 

[Deleted member 18193]

Does it follow that rape is a logical way to obtain sexual pleasure? Or is that also something that is driven by emotional needs?

 

[Deleted member 19546]

2. Give me an example of such a framework in which stealing money off of a corpse that has an obvious criminal source is MORAL?

If I am a commie then I don’t believe anyone should be that rich, much less a dead person. You tell me how are property rights an issue of morality? They are not, they are a legal issue.

 

[BlkPillPres]

If I am a commie then I don’t believe anyone should be that rich, much less a dead person. You tell me how are property rights an issue of morality? They are not, they are a legal issue.

You literally did not address what I said, how would you STEALING THE MONEY FOR YOURSELF be a moral thing?, your example has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with that

In fact your argument states exactly why you shouldn't take the money because it would make you rich and nobody should be "that rich"

Morality and logic can be opposed to each other, but they can be congruent too

I also stated this in the thread, but at their core they are completely opposed, because a logical decision is about doing what is to your benefit, while morality often entails doing what is to your detriment for the sake of adhering to a subjective standard of "right" or "wrong"

 

[Deleted member 14218]

i had this conversation with a couple of normshits and i asked a simple question. Do you honestly think that a starving african child will give a fuck about morals or it will steal and kill just to get food in his belly. Then they come with this shit , " oh but you just take extreme positions" well the only way to test an argument is to take it to extreme and see where it breaks and where it bends so you can make a conclusion whether its valid or not

 

[Personalityinkwell]

i had this conversation with a couple of normshits and i asked a simple question. Do you honestly think that a starving african child will give a fuck about morals or it will steal and kill just to get food in his belly. Then they come with this shit , " oh but you just take extreme positions" well the only way to test an argument is to take it to extreme and see where it breaks and where it bends so you can make a conclusion whether its valid or not

I can't take arguing with normshits, they have no logic whatsoever

 

[Deleted member 14218]

morality is just another word for compromising your self in a situation instead of compromising the situation

 

[Deleted member 19546]

You literally did not address what I said, how would you STEALING THE MONEY FOR YOURSELF be a moral thing?, your example has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with that

In fact your argument states exactly why you shouldn't take the money because it would make you rich and nobody should be "that rich"



I also stated this in the thread, but at their core they are completely opposed, because a logical decision is about doing what is to your benefit, while morality often entails doing what is to your detriment for the sake of adhering to a subjective standard of "right" or "wrong"

You're smart enough that I don't have to elaborate it to you. Don't bother replying to this.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

Truth. Extraction of resources to your own benefit is all that counts in this world and should be an incels sole aim

 

[Shin no Shi]

You would think that something this simple would not need to be explained, but you'd be underestimating the level of cognitive dissonance of the average user on this site, who wants to stand on both sides and classify themselves as logical and moral, when in reality, both stances couldn't be further apart

In a lot of scenarios they are at odds with eachother and you either prove yourself to be a "truly moral" person or a "truly logical" person

The average person will often choose a moral stance over a logical one, and that by default makes them illogical, you can't have it both ways

Do emotional/moral people make logical decisions, yes, but its circumstantial for them, it isn't their "core worldview", the world of emotions and subjectivity is their "core worldview", so when a REAL DECISION (life or death scenario, life changing circumstances, etc) in life has to be made when they choose between whats logical and whats moral, they choose morality

For a logical person its the inverse, they'll make moral decisions based on circumstances for the sake of keeping up appearances, not even because they feel anything about if its "right" or "wrong", but when it comes down to a REAL DECISION they will always choose the logical choice despite how it affects others, because they aren't influenced by emotions



MORALITY IS NOT LOGICAL

MORALITY BY DEFINITION AND ALL KNOWN CONTEXT IS ABOUT EMOTIONAL APPEAL (SUBJECTIVE IDEALS NOT OBJECTIVE REALITY)

They are two completely separate things

You can be logical or a moralist, but you can't be both, because morality is at odds with logic

If you find a brief case filled with millions of dollars in an alleyway next to a dead body:

The LOGICAL thing to do is to take the money and dispose of the briefcase far away from where you love

The MORAL thing to do is to stand there and call the police

One has to forsake certain morals to make certain logical decisions and one has to forsake cold hard logic under certain circumstances in order to remain moral

They do not work in congruence with eachother, they are diametrically opposed

Moralfags need to stop FALSELY CONFLATING logic and morality, logic in its purest form IS IMMORAL, logic has nothing to do with subjective concepts like "right" or "wrong"



Let me put it this way in an abstract sense, think of 1+2=3

Morality is contemplating whether 2 consented to be added to 1 (in reference to rape)

Morality is contemplating whether 3 wished to exist in its state and if it was wrong to create it (in reference to giving birth to a child that would have a known defect)

LOGIC IS MERELY STATING THAT 1+2=3, NO JUDGEMENTS ARE MADE, ACTIONS ARE MERELY OBSERVED AND OBSERVATIONS ARE REPORTED

I already gave my answer to this yesterday with an old post of yours but yes they both can be separated, and logic in a sense is purely immoral, look at manipulation. It's immoral because of the subjective feelings we apply to it but people do it because they want to achieve a desire they set for themselves so yes, the only way we ever have the advanced society we do now is because we've pushed boundaries even further, even if they were unethical/immoral, otherwise we would end up being something of the sort such as the amish or another religious community.

However, you can still pertain both, as morals of a person can be devised from logic in order to assert control in the masses and keep them in check from killing each other or causing more violations.

 

[BlkPillPres]

You're smart enough that I don't have to elaborate it to you

JFL now I'm smart enough, stop with the bullshit, you know full well everything you've said so far is false, you are grasping for straws and now you don't even have a leg to stand on

Don't bother replying to this

Maybe you should take your own advice seeing as you are in the wrong

 

[Shin no Shi]

Truth. Extraction of resources to your own benefit is all that counts in this world and should be an incels sole aim

Only thing that should be going for us. Imagine all the resources we control, meaning that we can have our incelistan we dream of.

 

[BlkPillPres]

If you or your loved ones are starving then stealing could be morally justified.

Actually it wouldn't, stealing would still be immoral, your loved ones being alive has nothing to do with the greater good, keeping them alive is something you do FOR YOURSELF, because YOU, NOT THE PERSON YOU ROBBED, wants them alive

Obviously it goes without saying that keeping yourself alive has nothing to do with morality so I don't even know why the fuck you included stealing because you are starving is moral, that is ridiculous

What you are saying is false at face value, I can't believe you actually posted this as if you didn't read it over

Feeding your starving family isn't moral, its logical, its something TO YOUR BENEFIT

Morality is about a collective set of rules of "right" and "wrong" geared towards "fairness" and a "collective benefit" NOT PERSONAL BENEFIT


Here's a hypothetical:
If someone is holding your loved ones at gun point, and commands that you rape a random woman in front of him else he rapes and kills your family members, would you raping that woman now be a moral thing?

Obviously no, you guys have so many concepts conflated in your minds that you actually think doing something selfish (something you benefit from at the detriment of others) is moral

SPECIFICALLY YOUR LOVED ONES having a "good life" isn't a moral thing, its not a "collective good", its a selfish desire

Truth. Extraction of resources to your own benefit is all that counts in this world and should be an incels sole aim

Exactly

morality is just another word for compromising your self in a situation instead of compromising the situation

This sounds like some kind of well known quote, its worthy of a signature

 

[Shin no Shi]

Are you Blackpill TV by any chance, because if so I really like your videos that you've posted and have been a great help in understanding this rigged game that is called life

 

[Deleted member 14218]

This sounds like some kind of well known quote, its worthy of a signature

i don't know if you have heard of immortal technique a revolutionary rapper he said it first(minus the morality) . I just combined his version and in this context of morality where i figured it belongs best

 

[BlkPillPres]

i don't know if you have heard of immortal technique a revolutionary rapper he said it first. I just used the quote where i thought was necessary

I actually have heard of him, he's known to speak about a lot of conspiracy stuff and even rap about it

Think I'll save that quote, perfect for black pilling some normies IRL lol, you know they love short concise shit, it forces them to think rather than critique

 

[Deleted member 19546]

JFL now I'm smart enough, stop with the bullshit, you know full well everything you've said so far is false, you are grasping for straws and now you don't even have a leg to stand on

low IQ tbh

Why is it immoral to take money that nobody owns? (owner is dead) you never even explained why, your whole post is dumb.

 

[Deleted member 14218]

Why is it immoral to take money that nobody owns? (owner is dead) you never even explained why, your whole post is dumb.

uh cuz it would benefit you in that particular situation and make your life better ? i don't know what's not clear about that lol

 

[BlkPillPres]

uh cuz it would benefit you in that particular situation and make your life better ? i don't know what's not clear about that lol

This guy is a retard or a troll

"I'm a moral person.............. I can't tell however why taking blood money off of a corpse for personal gain is immoral"

I'm just blocking him dude, this forum has made my tolerance level for stupid become weak, I've already blocked like 3 people since I came back, this site has made me go from being annoyed by stupidity to enraged by it

There's just to much fucking idiots gathered in this one place, its unbelievable, I swear some of these guys would be incel even in patriarchal times, they're hopeless

Are you Blackpill TV by any chance, because if so I really like your videos that you've posted and have been a great help in understanding this rigged game that is called life

Nah, my channel has my name, I don't make videos anymore because I'm focused on wealthmaxxing

 

[Deleted member 24160]

There is a reason ethics is divided into normative, descriptive, and applied fields. You do not need to lead a moral life to consider yourself moral, just like the courageous do not need to act courageously all the time to prove their virtue.

In your briefcase example, you assume that logic equals "what is the most beneficial to myself," which moreover assumes you are selfish by default and are not an altruist at all; these things may be true in yourself, but do not apply to many people, to put just one case where the premise fails. It also disregards potential backfiring should the money e.g., belong to a mafioso, at which point simply turning the money in to the police and moving on or leaving the money where it is would be the most logical course of action.

The argument that logic and morality are at odds here seems to be very flawed. You can perfectly know which course of action is "logical" as you call it, yet perfectly prefer to act morally. You are not illogical if you prefer to act according to your morals, values, or beliefs. Otherwise, you could only call robots and perfect psychopaths truly logical; geniuses like Einstein, Tesla, Kant, acted often illogically and therefore couldn't be called logical. If so, everyone on Earth is illogical by extension. No point in using the world in this way, it's pointless and pedantic.

To end with an example, suppose I demand you answer how much 2 + 2 is, but tell you that if you answer 4 I will shoot you. The "logical" answer according to you is 4, yet you will likely answer 5. If you retort by saying that saying 5 was in your favor, then acting morally despite knowing logical courses of action is also in your favor, since it is your will and desire. However you look at it, morality and logic can and do coexist.

Surprised the Admin replied to this thread.

 

[based_meme]

Surprised the Admin replied to this thread.

Imagine getting something so wrong that the admin has to step in and post something.

 

[Deleted member 24160]

Imagine getting something so wrong that the admin has to step in and post something.

I don't get @BlkPillPres's threads. They just come off as something an edgy 14 year old would right thinking he's cracked the code on life. At the least the ones about morality.

 

[based_meme]

I don't get @BlkPillPres's threads. They just come off as something an edgy 14 year old would right thinking he's cracked the code on life. At the least the ones about morality.

Yes, a number of us have noticed that as well.

@B.O.G.A.R.T. for your entertainment.

 

[N-Digger]

Morality and empathy were logical back when we lived in small tribes of 100-150 people. We wouldn't have survived if we didn't help each other and so these traits became the norm in the human population. Helping your tribe would mean that you would have a greater chance of your genes being passed on, as most people in the tribe were related to you in some way. I guess now that we live in an advanced society it doesn't really serve a purpose, kind of like how some people are sacred of the dark.

 

[BlkPillPres]

There is a reason ethics is divided into normative, descriptive, and applied fields. You do not need to lead a moral life to consider yourself moral

Yeah thanks for stating the obvious, people often tell themselves whatever they want to believe, that isn't news nor is that an argument against anything I said, we have 6'5" white guys on this forum that say they have an average face but they are still incel

I really don't get why you just said this like it was a point lol - "You can lie to yourself you know", yeah no shit, people can consider whatever they want about themselves, that's completely separate from the objective reality of what they actually are, for example I can consider myself white but I'm still dark as fuck lol

just like the courageous do not need to act courageously all the time to prove their virtue

They don't have to do it to "prove" it, but they have to do it to "be" it

You can't pick and choose when you are courageous or pick and choose when you are moral, because such subjective criteria renders the terms pointless

A man who has been a coward for 30+ years can just keep asserting that he's actually courageous but "he doesn't need to do it all the time" and "he'll do it soon" JFL

What you're saying is ridiculous, it literally renders the term pointless

Based on your logic EVERYONE IS COURAGEOUS, OR MORAL, ETC, they are just "waiting for their moment"

In your briefcase example, you assume that logic equals "what is the most beneficial to myself," which moreover assumes you are selfish by default and are not an altruist at all

It has to do with biological reality, observable reality, you can believe in whatever God or after life you want, but in this biological reality, AS AN ANIMAL, the most logical thing ALWAYS PERTAINS TO WHAT BENEFITS YOU

Altruism, charity, etc only mean anything "if there is a God" which you aren't sure of and have no proof of, so it isn't logical at all, it will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside but don't confuse that feeling for anything being a "logical choice"

You are not illogical if you prefer to act according to your morals, values, or beliefs

If those morals, values, or beliefs prevent you from making a choice that is to your OBJECTIVE BENEFIT (safety, resources, survival, etc) THEN YOU ARE ILLOGICAL

I think I need to assert again that "feeling good about yourself" is not a "benefit", it may feel that way to you but you didn't actually gain anything, nothing of objective worth was gained, and its subjective so anyone can assert that they "made the right choice". Serial killers documenting their acts often claim the experience to be euphoric, so by your logic I guess they made a logical choice because it "felt good"

If you don't get anything of objective worth from a choice, it was not a logical one, even if you are abiding by your morals/beliefs and you feel good about it

Otherwise, you could only call robots and perfect psychopaths truly logical; geniuses like Einstein, Tesla, Kant, acted often illogically and therefore couldn't be called logical

Yes, robots and psychopaths are literally more logical than the average human, that is a fact

You are falsely conflating "logic" and "intelligence", if Einstein jumped infront of a moving car and pushed a woman out of the way just to save her life BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, he would STILL BE INTELLIGENT but THAT ACT WAS NOT A LOGICAL ONE

Do you get the difference?

They are two separate concepts, Einstein acted on emotion in that scenario not logic, that has nothing to do with his ability to solve complex equations or do anything that he did in the field of science

If so, everyone on Earth is illogical by extension

Yes, most humans are in fact illogical

To end with an example, suppose I demand you answer how much 2 + 2 is, but tell you that if you answer 4 I will shoot you. The "logical" answer according to you is 4, yet you will likely answer 5. If you retort by saying that saying 5 was in your favor, then acting morally despite knowing logical courses of action is also in your favor, since it is your will and desire. However you look at it, morality and logic can and do coexist.

JFL no, you need to spend more time coming up with analogies, this one is pretty much loaded with the false premise that there is some inherent logic to answering truthfully, if you asked me the answer to a quadratic equation I would not even be able to solve it much more lie about the answer so your analogy makes no sense AND ITS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOU FALSELY CONFLATING INTELLIGENCE WITH LOGIC (THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS)

One can be highly intelligent and yet illogical and one can be very logical and yet not that intelligent

Refer back to the Einstein example, him jumping in front of that car to save a random woman, doesn't make him stupid, he's still smarter than any of us by leagues, he'd just be someone who is more easily influenced by EMOTIONS, and that makes him LESS LOGICAL (he's still a genius though)

Imagine getting something so wrong that the admin has to step in and post something.

Imagine asserting someone is right just by virtue of being the admin, talk about appeal to authority, let me guess, you were the teacher ass kisser in school that nobody liked?

I don't get @BlkPillPres's threads. They just come off as something an edgy 14 year old would right thinking he's cracked the code on life. At the least the ones about morality.

Ironically aren't you 15 (alledgedly)

1. Didn't you say you were going to kill yourself recently seeing as
2. Your Aunt was caught in a gangbang with some black dudes and
3. So far three males have already committed suicide in 1 year for your family

Yeah, all that shit is so believable

Dude everybody knows you are a larp, you can drop the act now, all you do is make ridiculous edgy posts

 

[Deleted member 24160]

Yeah thanks for stating the obvious, people often tell themselves whatever they want to believe, that isn't news nor is that an argument against anything I said, we have 6'5" white guys on this forum that say they have an average face but they are still incel

I really don't get why you just said this like it was a point lol - "You can lie to yourself you know", yeah no shit, people can consider whatever they want about themselves, that's completely seperate from the objective reality of what they are, I can consider myself white but I'm still dark as fuck lol



They don't have to do it to "prove" it, but they have to do it to "be" it

You can't pick and choose when you are courageous or pick and choose when you are moral, because such subjective and pointless criteria renders the terms pointless

A man who has been a coward for 30+ years can just keep asserting that he's actually courageous but "he doesn't need to do it all the time" and "he'll do it soon" JFL

What you're saying is ridiculous, it literally renders the term pointless

Based on your logic EVERYONE IS COURAGEOUS, OR MORAL, ETC, they are just "waiting for their moment"



It has to do with biological reality, observable reality, you can believe in whatever God or after life you want, but in this biological reality, AS AN ANIMAL, the most logical thing ALWAYS PERTAINS TO WHAT BENEFITS YOU

Altruism, charity, etc only mean anything "if there is a God" which you aren't sure of and have no proof of, so it isn't logical at all, it will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside but don't confuse that feeling for anything being a "logical choice"



If those morals, values, or beliefs prevent you from making a choice that is to your OBJECTIVE BENEFIT (safety, resources, survival, etc) THEN YOU ARE ILLOGICAL

I think I need to assert again that "feeling good about yourself" is not a "benefit", it may feel that way to you but you didn't actually gain anything, nothing of objective worth was gained, and its subjective so anyone can assert that they "made the right choice". Serial killers documenting their acts often claim the experience to be euphoric, so by your logic I guess they made a logical choice because it "felt good"

If you don't get anything of objective worth from a choice, it was not a logical one



Yes, robots and psychopaths are literally more logical than the average human, that is a fact

You are falsely conflating "logic" and "intelligence", if Einstein jumped infront of a moving car and pushed a woman out of the way just to save her life BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, he would STILL BE INTELLIGENT but THAT ACT WAS NOT A LOGICAL ONE

Do you get the difference?

They are two separate concepts, Einstein acted on emotion in that scenario not logic, that has nothing to do with his ability to solve complex equations to do anything that he did in the field of science



Yes, most humans are in fact illogical



JFL no, you need to spend more time coming up with analogies, this one is pretty much loaded with the false premise that there is some inherent logic to answering truthfully, if you asked me the answer to a quadratic equation I would not even be able to solve it much more lie about the answer so your analogy makes no sense AND ITS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOU FALSELY CONFLATING INTELLIGENCE WITH LOGIC (THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS)

One can be highly intelligent and yet illogical and one can be very logical and yet not that intelligent

Refer back to the Einstein example, him jumping in front of that car to save a random woman, doesn't make him stupid, he's still smarter than any of us by leagues, he'd just be someone who is more easily influenced by EMOTIONS, and that makes him LESS LOGICAL (he's still a genius though)






Imagine asserting someone is right just by virtue of being the admin, talk about appeal to authority, let me guess, you were the teacher ass kisser in school that nobody liked?






Ironically aren't you 15 (alledgedly)

1. Didn't you say you were going to kill yourself recently seeing as
2. Your Aunt was caught in a gangbang with some black dudes and
3. So far three males have already committed suicide in 1 year for your family

Yeah, all that shit is so believable

Dude everybody knows you are a larp, you can drop the act now, all you do is make ridiculous edgy posts

I thought you had me on ignore. I am 15. My cousin is crazy and it wasn't a gangbang she brought two guys to screw at home. And yeah there was 3 suicides, I have a big family on both sides of my mom and dad. What's edgy about my posts? I say yours are because you talk about how morality is a lie and you constantly mention how you'll go on a rape, robbery and murder spree instead of committing suicide and how other members should do it as well. Your so bad with it the Admin of the site had to leave a reply.

 

[Deleted member 18193]

Surprised the Admin replied to this thread.

"It is pointless to argue with someone who is never wrong"

 

[Deleted member 24160]

"It is pointless to argue with someone who is never wrong"

What's this supposed to mean? That @BlkPillPres can't argue with @SergeantIncel at risk of being banned or that @BlkPillPres doesn't think he can be wrong?

 

[Deleted member 18193]

What's this supposed to mean? That @BlkPillPres can't argue with @SergeantIncel at risk of being banned or that @BlkPillPres doesn't think he can be wrong?

The latter.

 

[Deleted member 24160]

The latter.

Oh ok.

 

[based_meme]

Imagine asserting someone is right just by virtue of being the admin, talk about appeal to authority, let me guess, you were the teacher ass kisser in school that nobody liked?

How is it that you can write so many words and not understand a simple thing? Saying that the admin is right because he's the admin is an appeal to authority. Saying that you being wrong to the point where you elicit a response from the admin who hardly ever participates in these discussions is not making this appeal. In fact it's not saying anything about whether he's right or wrong.

And if you must know, my teachers generally didn't like me (when I got bored and didn't care about their class) or they ignored me (when they realized I already understand the material).

 

[BlkPillPres]

You seem to be heavily reliant on assumptions and generalizing beliefs. Remember not all you take to be true needs to be true for everyone.

You seem to be heavily reliant on this concept of "your truth" and "my truth", no wonder you like this white pill nonsense, I may very well be wrong, but I don't believe in this "everyone is right" nonsense, assert that you are right or don't even bother

You are either wrong or you are right, something is either true or false, there is no "true for me" or "true for you", that is complete nonsense only accepted by people who just want believe whatever is comfortable to them rather than what is reality

"It is pointless to argue with someone who is never wrong"

I can be wrong, and i've been in interactions on this site with few users who I have told them they are right after arguing with them, you just happen to be one of the individuals who I wasn't wrong with lol, that's a fault on your part not mines

Saying that you being wrong to the point where you elicit a response from the admin who hardly ever participates in these discussions is not making this appeal. In fact it's not saying anything about whether he's right or wrong

Well that's just semantic BS that conveniently ignores the implication of your wording, because it means you are taking a ridiculous position, that I could be "so right" that it elicited a response from the admin JFL

You are trying to separate these two things, but if you alter the "wrong" to "right" it makes no sense, the sentence and its implication only matches within the context that you are asserting that the admin is right, and that I am "so wrong" that he had to respond

Does this sentence makes sense to you: - "Imagine getting something so right that the admin has to step in and post something"

Stop pretending as if you aren't aware of the implication of your words, what you are arguing here doesn't make sense, its semantic nonsense

I get what you are saying, but its just a disingenuous "loop hole", you could have just as easily pointed out that eliciting a response from the admin was of significance without relating it to how "wrong" I was, its you that took your own statement in that direction

 

[Deleted member 18193]

.

I know you don't care, but all I am saying is that it is the common impression of you.

 

[B.O.G.A.R.T.]

Yes, a number of us have noticed that as well.

@B.O.G.A.R.T. for your entertainment.

This take is even more inconsistent with his usual 'nihilist' approach. His "logic" about 'personal benefit' is subjective by definition. It is observable logic to be not objective. It's bound by someones perspective. His perspective in this case. If he was a nihilist, like he professes to be , he'd at the very least be familiar with the notion that logic is a tool based on arbitrary axioms. His head is so far up his arse that he fails to recognize the unbearable subjectiveness of his own reasoning here:

If you find a brief case filled with millions of dollars in an alleyway next to a dead body:
The LOGICAL thing to do is to take the money and dispose of the briefcase far away from where you love
The MORAL thing to do is to stand there and call the police

-- Claiming it would 'benefit him" does not does not make it "objective" or in any way reduce it's subjective character, it accentuates it. A nihilist pov would be asking yourself: 'what' is mandating this obligation to steal a sack of money that implies "objective worth"? --- does this obligation exist outside of his mind, his self-interest? Is it an objective, discoverable feature of the universe? No. There is no 'objective benefit' that can be universally applicable outside the benefit of someone, concerning someone of some thing. To care about only yourself makes you a egoist, preaching about it as being "objective" or "logical" in a valueless, meaningless universe turns you into a moralist, since your particular branch of morality is unequivocally rooted in your self interest.

 

[metabuxx]

morality is just another word for compromising your self in a situation instead of compromising the situation

 

[BlkPillPres]

I know you don't care, but all I am saying is that it is the common impression of you.

Yes, and its not a coincidence that the majority of this forum is filled with emotional men who base all of their beliefs, thoughts and actions on emotions, by default most of them are going to be wrong in an argument with me, and many have told me that I have convinced them to rethink something or change their minds completely