Scientific Morality! It's about time!

[kılıç_mehmet]

It's indeed interconnected, and there might be some scientific reasoning behind it, but the thing is, morals are there to be a guideline to society, not to be another riddle in the heads of people, they are not there to cause confusion, but to be the basis of social harmony.
So whatever basis I choose for mine, the fact is, they're there, and they tell me things that I require to be in harmony with my fellow people here.

A parochial view of morality - as expected from someone not familiar with its philosophical basis.

Morals are there to be more than just guidelines for society to preserve social harmony - they are guidelines for individuals on how to live their life and are necessary for growth and development of society, even if it means sacrificing social harmony on occasion. If social harmony was the only purpose of morality, then any revolutionary who does anything to disturb the social order - which is necessary for its eventual growth - would be considered immoral.

Well, from my viewpoint, individuals exist only as a part of a greater society. And indeed, without that society, no individual today would be able to exist on his own.
There is no form of growth and development that comes at the expense of social harmony. Society can and will resist such attempts by any and all means possible, and those who think themselves above the public, will find themselves in a very unpleasant situation.
Besides, change for the sake of change is never good. A matter of change is ought to be accepted by the public to actually occur. In that regard, it ought to be in favor of the public, and should abolish something that was not in favor of the public and social harmony.
For example, inciting a civil war in order to bring about a "revolution", as it is with the case of nearly all communist revolutions around the globe, Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam and etc. is never good for social harmony, and their outcomes are visible for everyone to see, even though their actions were considered to be "revolutionary" as they have toppled the current system and replaced it with another one.

[Magnum]

It's indeed interconnected, and there might be some scientific reasoning behind it, but the thing is, morals are there to be a guideline to society, not to be another riddle in the heads of people, they are not there to cause confusion, but to be the basis of social harmony.
So whatever basis I choose for mine, the fact is, they're there, and they tell me things that I require to be in harmony with my fellow people here.

A parochial view of morality - as expected from someone not familiar with its philosophical basis.

Morals are there to be more than just guidelines for society to preserve social harmony - they are guidelines for individuals on how to live their life and are necessary for growth and development of society, even if it means sacrificing social harmony on occasion. If social harmony was the only purpose of morality, then any revolutionary who does anything to disturb the social order - which is necessary for its eventual growth - would be considered immoral.

What is 'growth'? Is it fucking up the earth? Is it moving from a single story to a double story house just because you are a bachelor that deserves it? Is it an increase in the total annual animal kill? Is it the size of your dick?

[Creed of Heresy]

Well, I hope you understand that your immorality sucks!

The only thing we all understand is that you are either a product of government-induced ignorance who buys into his "Rah-rah China is the end-all-be-all of everything we are superior praise be to the Great Chinese Government " horse-shit, or you're a troll. I dunno which it is, but at this point, I'm suspecting it's both.

You are either genuinely in (ignorance-induced and therefore no fault of your own) favor of the Chinese government's ultranationalistic ideology, a troll trying to get a rise out of the forum's community, or a scared Chinese citizen citizen showing his Big Brother-centric government he is a good little mindless drone conforming to the ideals of the "party first, citizen-last" dogma that your inhumane government has forced upon you poor bastards.

Your country has a very long history of terrific innovative endeavors and scientific pursuits. But your country's current government is blatantly in favor of crushing the individual's value in favor of furthering its own political agenda, both domestically and globally. If you can't see this, I truly and genuinely pity you as much as I pity muslim women who actually believe that the quran espouses gender-equality, African children who think that might makes right because their militant leadership says so and that therefore killing the "cockroaches" is an ethically sound and morally justified act, catholics in general who believe they are irredeemable sinners damned to waste their lives in fruitless pursuits of redemption that will never come, and Protestant Christians who think that the bible is infallible regardless the overwhelming evidence that shows otherwise.

If you AREN'T a troll; I pity you, I really do, and I hope the moderators and admins see what a deluded, indoctrinated individual you are, and allow you continue to use this forum so that we might show you just what a load of bullshit you've been fed so that you might learn to think of yourself as a valuable person who can contribute to humanity in a morally-sound and intellectually-capable way.

If you ARE a troll and the admins determine as such, don't let the door hit your obnoxious, disruptive ass on the way out.

But in regards to the scared-citizen thing, if that is the case...find a way to communicate that to us that won't arouse suspicion from your human-rights-violating government as such and we'll accommodate you quite effectively, I assure you.

[genkaus]

Maybe he is afterall saying they are the only ones that are moral. I don't know. Do you think Harris and his stooges completed their findings and you know the outcome?

He is not saying that and no, they have not completed their findings, but I have a reasonable expectation of what the conclusions are going to be.

Name 5 Chinese movie stars your friends love.

Jet Li, Michelle Yeoh, Zhang Ziyi, Donnie Yen and Chow Yun-Fat.

Burn.

Name the person who is the the owner of the Lifan factory.

Founded by Yin Mingshan who, after the IPO now serves as the Chairman.

Burn.

What does Nanjing mean?

Southern Capital.

Burn.

What does 'Ni Ta ma de' mean?

"Your mother's...". I'm assuming that "cunt" is implied. Used as a swear instead of "fuck".

Burn.

Your country kept you under an illusion for way too long shithead!

What illusion would that be, asshole?

As far as knowledge goes, at this stage, you can only speak English.

Ha, what a joke. I'm fluent in 3 languages and can understand 2 more dialects.

Well, I hope you understand that your immorality sucks!

Its not my immorality, its yours.

---

Well, from my viewpoint, individuals exist only as a part of a greater society. And indeed, without that society, no individual today would be able to exist on his own.

Then your viewpoint is plain wrong. Individuals can and do exist on their own and others yet exist within society but apart from it.

There is no form of growth and development that comes at the expense of social harmony. Society can and will resist such attempts by any and all means possible, and those who think themselves above the public, will find themselves in a very unpleasant situation.

Almost all known forms of social growth and development have been at the expense of social harmony. Whether it be the establishment of British Parliament, French Revolution, Renaissance, Independence movements in the colonized nations, civil liberties movement or the current struggle of LGBT community. The one thing they all have in common is that they were all accompanied by social upheaval. And you know what, society did resist the change by any and all means possible - and yet the change occurred. Despite finding themselves in unpleasant situations, the revolutionaries stuck to their guns because their morality dictated so and ultimately, they won out.

Besides, change for the sake of change is never good.

Prove it.

A matter of change is ought to be accepted by the public to actually occur. In that regard, it ought to be in favor of the public, and should abolish something that was not in favor of the public and social harmony.

Your arguments fail on multiple levels.

The public is not always cognizant of what is in its favor. So they'll oppose the change simply because it disrupts the current harmony. Doesn't stop the change from happening.

The public may have acceptance forced upon them by the military regime. Still doesn't stop the change from happening.

The change may not be in favor of most of the public, but should be effected nonetheless - because it is the right thing to do. For example, in a society with slaves, those enslaved may form only a small fraction of the population and the overall cost of their freedom may not favor the whole society. Nevertheless, they should be freed, despite not being in favor of the society and disrupting social harmony, because it is the right thing to do.

For example, inciting a civil war in order to bring about a "revolution", as it is with the case of nearly all communist revolutions around the globe, Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam and etc. is never good for social harmony, and their outcomes are visible for everyone to see, even though their actions were considered to be "revolutionary" as they have toppled the current system and replaced it with another one.

A good example - one which contradicts your own views. This particular change was not in favor of social harmony. It does not necessarily favor the society and given the military involvement it is highly doubtful if it was freely accepted by the society rather than being forced upon them. And yet, the change did take place.

Whether it should be considered "growth" is questionable, however, it shows that any change brought is accompanied by disruption of social harmony and most of these changes are the result of certain moral imperatives, which means that social harmony is not the ultimate goal of morality.

---

What is 'growth'?

You mean societal growth - it means becoming more and more like a utopia.

Is it fucking up the earth?

Nope.

Is it moving from a single story to a double story house just because you are a bachelor that deserves it?

Yes.

Is it an increase in the total annual animal kill?

Only if you are in the food industry.

Is it the size of your dick?

Hell yeah. Didn't you know that? You can measure the level of societal development by the average penis size. Which is why the Chinese have the small penises.

[Magnum]

Maybe he is afterall saying they are the only ones that are moral. I don't know. Do you think Harris and his stooges completed their findings and you know the outcome?

He is not saying that and no, they have not completed their findings, but I have a reasonable expectation of what the conclusions are going to be.

Name 5 Chinese movie stars your friends love.

Jet Li, Michelle Yeoh, Zhang Ziyi, Donnie Yen and Chow Yun-Fat.

Burn.

Name the person who is the the owner of the Lifan factory.

Founded by Yin Mingshan who, after the IPO now serves as the Chairman.

Burn.

What does Nanjing mean?

Southern Capital.

Burn.

What does 'Ni Ta ma de' mean?

"Your mother's...". I'm assuming that "cunt" is implied. Used as a swear instead of "fuck".

Burn.

Your country kept you under an illusion for way too long shithead!

What illusion would that be, asshole?

As far as knowledge goes, at this stage, you can only speak English.

Ha, what a joke. I'm fluent in 3 languages and can understand 2 more dialects.

Well, I hope you understand that your immorality sucks!

Its not my immorality, its yours.

---

Well, from my viewpoint, individuals exist only as a part of a greater society. And indeed, without that society, no individual today would be able to exist on his own.

Then your viewpoint is plain wrong. Individuals can and do exist on their own and others yet exist within society but apart from it.

There is no form of growth and development that comes at the expense of social harmony. Society can and will resist such attempts by any and all means possible, and those who think themselves above the public, will find themselves in a very unpleasant situation.

Almost all known forms of social growth and development have been at the expense of social harmony. Whether it be the establishment of British Parliament, French Revolution, Renaissance, Independence movements in the colonized nations, civil liberties movement or the current struggle of LGBT community. The one thing they all have in common is that they were all accompanied by social upheaval. And you know what, society did resist the change by any and all means possible - and yet the change occurred. Despite finding themselves in unpleasant situations, the revolutionaries stuck to their guns because their morality dictated so and ultimately, they won out.

Besides, change for the sake of change is never good.

Prove it.

A matter of change is ought to be accepted by the public to actually occur. In that regard, it ought to be in favor of the public, and should abolish something that was not in favor of the public and social harmony.

Your arguments fail on multiple levels.

The public is not always cognizant of what is in its favor. So they'll oppose the change simply because it disrupts the current harmony. Doesn't stop the change from happening.

The public may have acceptance forced upon them by the military regime. Still doesn't stop the change from happening.

The change may not be in favor of most of the public, but should be effected nonetheless - because it is the right thing to do. For example, in a society with slaves, those enslaved may form only a small fraction of the population and the overall cost of their freedom may not favor the whole society. Nevertheless, they should be freed, despite not being in favor of the society and disrupting social harmony, because it is the right thing to do.

For example, inciting a civil war in order to bring about a "revolution", as it is with the case of nearly all communist revolutions around the globe, Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam and etc. is never good for social harmony, and their outcomes are visible for everyone to see, even though their actions were considered to be "revolutionary" as they have toppled the current system and replaced it with another one.

A good example - one which contradicts your own views. This particular change was not in favor of social harmony. It does not necessarily favor the society and given the military involvement it is highly doubtful if it was freely accepted by the society rather than being forced upon them. And yet, the change did take place.

Whether it should be considered "growth" is questionable, however, it shows that any change brought is accompanied by disruption of social harmony and most of these changes are the result of certain moral imperatives, which means that social harmony is not the ultimate goal of morality.

---

What is 'growth'?

You mean societal growth - it means becoming more and more like a utopia.

Is it fucking up the earth?

Nope.

Is it moving from a single story to a double story house just because you are a bachelor that deserves it?

Yes.

Is it an increase in the total annual animal kill?

Only if you are in the food industry.

Is it the size of your dick?

Hell yeah. Didn't you know that? You can measure the level of societal development by the average penis size. Which is why the Chinese have the small penises.

Because you used the word Utopia, you are partly forgiven. All you have do do now is admit that you know nothing about China!

[genkaus]

Because you used the word Utopia, you are partly forgiven.

Forgiven for what, you dipshit?

All you have do do now is admit that you know nothing about China!

I know a lot about China - as evidenced by all my answers above.

[Magnum]

Because you used the word Utopia, you are partly forgiven.

Forgiven for what, you dipshit?

All you have do do now is admit that you know nothing about China!

I know a lot about China - as evidenced by all my answers above.

Sorry fuckface but you're dumped in utter darkness. I wouldn't know how to rescue you, even from down under!

[genkaus]

Sorry fuckface but you're dumped in utter darkness. I wouldn't know how to rescue you, even from down under!

What makes you think I need rescuing?

[Creed of Heresy]

I'm officially [though without any authority] declaring this guy a troll.

[Angrboda]

Troll or tard. It makes no difference.