Human Animals Struggle To Be Right
…I think they ought struggle to find where they’re wrong, and that’s the one sure time they can know they’re right.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
Right and wrong? No such thing. Only weak cock-suckers believe in right and wrong. Evolution has no such concepts.
Travis
Too broad. Evolution includes human minds and includes precepts, precepts and concepts. Metaphor too.
Human precepts and concepts don’t make something real. Like God.
Right and wrong is a concept for the weak. We are living in a cold universe and here by chance for no reason or purpose. Right and wrong is a fairy-tail religious belief.
*tale
“Human precepts and concepts don’t make something real. Like God.”
Cool, so I can just dismiss this comment and the previous one as meaningless.
Stealing the concept is an armature mistake. If you truly believe there’s no such thing as a mind, that nothing is right or wrong, there are no distinctions to make, the last thing you’d do is post assertions that you’re right about a negation of the possibility of right in a comment.
You’d just shut up. But you don’t.
It is entertaining though, so keep asserting you’re right about there being no such thing as right.
Richard, Richard, Richard. You just don’t get it. For someone who accuses others of being like a kindergartner, you are sure doing a mighty fine imitation of one.
Right and wrong, can be true or false, or it can be moral or immoral. There is no such thing as wrong, as in the immoral sense. No universal wrong. Police officers, “robbing people at gunpoint at the side of the road”, is not wrong in the immoral sense. You may not like it, but it’s not universally wrong. Stealing is not wrong. Murder is not wrong. Those things just are. There is no moral law. It’s a figment of your weak mind if you do think there is.
What you are really saying when you say something is wrong, is that it’s what Richard doesn’t like. Things that you think shouldn’t be are not wrong, they are just your opinion of how you think thing should be. And other people want things to be different than you. Most people in fact want most things to be different than you do.
What you are accusing me of, is arguing against the existence of truth, which I am not doing.
“or it can be moral or immoral.”
I’m confused. Are you right or wrong about that?
“I’m confused. Are you right or wrong about that?”
Based on the English language, I’m right.
“Based on the English language, I’m right.”
Full circle, then. The first two sentences posted in the thread:
“Right and wrong? No such thing.”
“Right” – That which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
“Wrong” – not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
“Right and wrong? No such thing.”
“he who thinks he knows doesn’t know. He who knows he doesn’t know knows. For in this context, to know is to not to know. And not to know is to know.” from Tao-te Ching
Geoff
What Travis ought have written.
Richard thinks he knows everything.
You’re a fucking nerd, Travis.
Right, and you’re here to tell us that nobody really knows anything (implicitly except you).
I’ve been reading your blog for a couple years Richard and rarely read the comments, which I generally avoid out of necessity. The way you just dealt with old Travis here though makes me lament all the hilarity I surely have been missing. Well done. Travis, hush now, grown ups are talking.
“Struggling to find where they are wrong”
Does that also apply to being an atheist??
Welcome Travis II. Confusing where the burden of proof lies is the 2nd most common amateur error.
You were right Travis I, he does seems to know everything. That’s why I and II are amateurs.
Yea, as you assert the existence of something you’re unable to provide reproducible evidence for.
Did I assert the existence of anything? I asked a simple question as it applies to atheism. You took it personally. I certainly don’t know if there is or isn’t a God or afterlife. Atheists and Bible thumpers are equally fanatical of their positions, and neither knows for sure what death brings.
“I certainly don’t know if there is or isn’t a God or afterlife.”
Nor do I know or don’t know whether there are flying unicorns that fart rainbows.
Sky goG delusions are just as fucktarded, with that added fucktardedness that people actually take that stupid shit literally.
“Atheists and Bible thumpers are equally fanatical of their positions,”
Yes, and NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
“…and neither knows for sure what death brings.”
Let’s see: ceased respiration, heartbeat, brain activity, etc. Then it begins to decay as ‘worms eat into the brain.’ Eventually, left out in the open there will be no trace as it’s entirely consumed by microorganisms, leaving some trace minerals.
That about cover what we actually KNOW, have observed, and is reproducible 100% of the time?
In case anyone is interested, given the above, Travis has an additional problem in that he is ignorant of the derivation of natural human rights; that they have zero to do with Sky doGs or mysticism.
Now, such may or may not be relevant to any other intelligent being, so it’s not a universal. It simply applies to mentally competent earth humans.
Simply stated, humans don’t automatically pursue the values needed to survive (food, water, shelter, even social relationships—we are social beings). Humans have to choose to do so and the fact that they have such choice is manifest in the fact of conscious human suicide, either by act or conscious omission, fast or slow.
Since this choice is a natural attribute, it’s a natural choice; or stated alternatively, a “right.” There’s only one natural right: the right to pursue values necessary for survival. Everything else is a corollary (and why many claims to “rights” are erroneous). So, for instance, the right to own possessions is a moral right because some autonomy over possessions is generally required to exercise a pursuit of values necessary to live.
Most basically, moral is simply that which is objectively good for the human organism and immoral is that which is objectively bad, including all the clear corollaries on both sides.
And no, unlike with bibles, it’s not always easy to make clear determinations.
There.
“Most basically, moral is simply that which is objectively good for the human organism and immoral is that which is objectively bad, including all the clear corollaries on both sides.”
You mean, what Richard thinks is good or bad.
“You mean, what Richard thinks is good or bad.”
Let me write it again:
“…which is objectively…”
So in order to test what Travis was all about I popped him in the mod queue, let him spew forth, but only approved select comments, while not others.
Here’s the latest:
Author : Travis (IP: 75.129.1.227 , 75-129-1-227.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com)
E-mail : [redacted]
URL :
Whois : whois.arin.net/rest/ip/75.129.1.227
Comment:
At least have the decency to post that you are ban in my comments.
~~~
I’m mystified. Decency implies some sort of moral code whereby people deal with one-another in a mutually up-&-up sort of way. According to Travis, this does not exist or at least if it does, it’s completely subjective and hence, unimportant.
Can’t imagine what he’s upset about. It’s all relative, law of the jungle, etc.
I actually do think this is not a matter of morality, other than that it’s my place, I get to do what I want, and folks can choose or choose not to deal with it. Merely an object lesson, one I’ve done many times before when someone struts around saying there’s no such thing as ethics or morality.
Subject at hand and no more nihilist BS.
The last great scientists were the Germans up until the mid 50’s-60’s. They used to actually do science. Come up with a theory>hypothesize>test>study>rinse>repeat.
Most scientists these days are trying to “prove” their half baked theories and most often overlook a massive amount data that counters the theory as proposed. Or they adjust their theories to suit only part of the data gleaned. Case in point Ancel Keys.
If more people were willing to be proven wrong or allow their thoughts to be challenged the world would be a better/freer place.
Fun on a Friday morning.
freetheanimal.com/2014/10/objective-mystical-subjective.html
Perhaps it will help some understand why I can’t take Travis very seriously very long (though I explain why I understand his proto-thinking) and his jerking off in public eventually met its end.
Travis = confirmation bias + sunk cost fallacy.
[…] to do so. Actions speak louder than words. It’s primarily #2 that I wish to address, since it came up in a comment thread the other day. But let’s first dispense with […]