Morality is a spook

They are pure opportunists that simply don't have a current piece of the pie, enough that they would like. They are driven more by base ressentiment and desire than a want to help people by freeing them from the dominance of capitalism. Bordiga's right in that people like this will always just be Stalin when in power, except he thought the solution was more empty ideology, rather seeing the ideology as just a template that opportunists will worm around no matter what it is. All the various religious laws no matter how extensive, specific and convoluted (take Catholicism) compared with how its functionaries and leaders actually have behaved is demonstrative of this.

How so?

yup

Appeal to emotion.
I just don't want them.
Do you need someone to tell you to do everything before you make a judgement?

...

Literally no reason for liberals to prefer anything other than capitalism then. No real argument against capitalism except "i don't like it, personally" or maybe "it might fail" (but who cares?), then no argument for what ought to replace it in that case. So why bother pretending you're really a leftist?

that y'all are champagne socialist

You seem a little misguided. I would recommend reading his works.

I dont want heroin addicted child prostitutes, I am a sub not a Dom

I read enough to know what he was. I don't subscribe to your dogmatic metaphysics, and his ideas won't fix the opportunism problem, sorry.

I should reword, I don't think all morality is derived from empathy, but I think some of it is. Why is murder is generally considered immoral? I understand there is gray area murder, like self-defense, here I am talking about cold blood. I think we consider that immoral because we feel bad for the victim, and don't want that to happen to us. I would argue we would feel it is an injustice, it is not fair to the victim. All these feelings are derived from empathy.

Why is pedophilia immoral? Perhaps because we feel bad for the victim, once again. Because we empathesize with a child and their vulnerable states, and don't want to see that harm fall on our children.

Its hard to answer because it is subjective but I think it is short-sighted to dismiss all morality as a spook, a construct.

Snarl word
Fact of the matter is, if you're going to make an argument, then make one instead of using anecdotes that are more emotional than lend any credence to your position.

Unless they value the same things, it is pointless. You're not going to convince a porky to stop porking if he enjoys doing it. I can argue based on what I and others like me value. It's you that has no real basis, because expect everyone to accept some grand overarching principle merely because of its stature.

not a very convincing trap

faggot

U wot? That is a strap on

Stay mad

So you're a solipsist then? If not you're a hypocrite. The existence of other minds is hardly demonstrable either, yet indispensable.

Also, on what basis are you claiming using "snarlwords" is bad. Seems moralistic.

Holy shit, I thought it was acknowledged that Stirner was just a meme.
Abstract concepts are the means by which we understand the world.
The only potentially fundamental mistake that people make with spooks is not understanding that while their spooks can be desirable they are desirable (psychologically) never due to themselves. Even that is debatable.

Theres more than one person on leftypol.

There, doned.

lol trick'd

If this was responding to me, you haven't proven exo-cognition is phenomenal, and not just mechanical. You simply want it to be true that you haven't been dealing with advanced fleshy chatbots your whole life. Stay spooked.

All things in reality are mechanical.

So basically nothing is a spook because everything we do or feel is connected to our biology in some way? Super argument, brah.

...

Why? The fact I said there were others out there who valued the same things as me should clue you in to what I believe.

A snarlword is just that. It's a tactic to appeal to people's gut responses and avoid talking about the issue at hand. Unless you're saying you rather not talk about it, I don't see your point.

You're an idiot.
wew

...

There is no such thing as metaphysical, learn to read. Everything is mechanical, all abstractions are merely emergent properties of arrangement of physics.

...

Scientism.

Just because there's no system in place to tell you something is wrong doesn't suddenly mean you're going to go out and do it.
It's not wrong but that doesn't mean people will do it when morality is found to be baseless. The voluntary egoist takes care of his property because it helps him, your scenario doesn't help anybody and is not preferable.

Aside from this you seem to think morality holds people in place, it does not. People will still commit things they think is "wrong" and rationalize it anyway (see: religion). So either way it doesn't matter. Don't get caught up in fixed ideas.

litterally

not him, but if you actually read those wikipedia pages you would know that he did in fact win the debate.

Why are you so mad that your mechanistic physicalism is metaphysical, and dogmatic? Seems like it's getting you in the feels, which I thought were inferior to "reals"

And then
>He gets butthurt because I can't be bothered to look up the special snowflake definitions which make up his entire one sentence argument.
Yea fuck off will ya. Its called a smokescreen, where you use lots of meaningless or needlessly complex or abstract words to try and seem smart, when in reality you can't even convey what you are trying to say.

If I made my argument in Dutch or Chinese it wouldn't make me win just because you don't know what it even says.

Sorry m8 I assumed more prior background. I'll try explain, it's a large and difficult topic. Exo-cognition I just made up it was a fun way of expressing something like the idea of philosophical zombies. Phenomenal consciousness is related to the way red looks "red", for example. There is no relationship at all between the wavelength of light and "redness". Phenomenal consciousness is a huge philosophical problem, so much so it's usually considered impossible to prove anyone else just has it from your own perspective. As in, everything in their brains could be working as normal, they could tell you they see "red", but that would just be the language centre in their brain responding to an internal map, they'd just be mechanically running out a program, like a computer. The lights would be on, but no one would be home. If that makes sense.

So these hypothetical people with the lights on but no one home are referred to as "zombies". It's a problem with a purely physical view of the universe, which doesn't mean the soul is real or any shit like that.

You could have just said
Which I would agree with completely. And it doesn't matter if they are or aren't. Chinese room and all that. If it looks and acts like I would expect a fellow human to do, then it doesn't really matter whether it actually functions the same way I do. For all intends and purposes, their black box exterior is the same as mine, and thus we are indistinguishable.

super reading comprehension brah.

As I said, not everything is based in our biology. Eating pork is considered immoral and taboo in Islam, but its because of text, not feeling. That could very well be a spook. So would you like to show me where I said "nothing is a spook"?

Yeah but I like being a jerk and trolling people with word play.

Don't.

Really, because I got the wikipedia page for metaphysics.
It isn't a position or theory you dolt, it's a study. That's like saying 'I googled biology and I didn't find any thesis statement'.
Eh, everything else you said was reasonable. I was focused on the post you replied to (which I think was coherent and correct) rather than his earlier posts, which I agree were pretty stupid.

Why? Is it morally wrong?

Kind of my point that moral /arguments/ are all based in empathy. Which is different to random religious commandments.

No its annoying as fuck and you look like a dick.

So what? I don't have any reason to give a shit other than consideration (empathy).

People won't internalise your arguments if they dont like or understand you.

And there's zero reason for me to care if people take my arguments to heart or not, if not a desire to increase people's understanding or to help them see something more clearly, so maybe they may help others and so on. Seems moral to me?

Seems more like it would be in your interests if people agreed with your worldview so you can live the way you want to with less risk and more opportunities.

It's not really in my interests though. My interests are to manipulate others for my own short term gain. I'm already in a first world country, I have no reason to give a shit what others believe, so long as I can understand them and even use it against them.

My point is why care about the truth itself, if there is no virtue in truth?

Thats not what we we're arguing though.

Well if there is virtue in truth then there is at least one pure virtue, which is what I'm talking about with "moral". We can build from there.

There is no truth.

Self-refuting.