ITT, Freeky shares insights gained after reading Warren Ellis' Transmetropolitan

[Brotep]

I'd sell the corn extremely cheap, go back to the other traders , show them how little money is to be made and offer to buy their corn.

step 2: monopoly

step 3: use monopoly to get power instead of money.
this way you look like the good guy while setting yourself up for life.

Good fucking luck with that...I've already blocked the harbor with a burning wreck.

My floating corpse mocks you.

Step 2) Dump crude oil in the area around the burning wreck

Step 3) ???

Step 4) POPCORN

[Reginald Ret]

All's well that ends well.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Transmet spoke to me very differently. To me it said that cultural norms have NOTHING to do with morals. What's right or wrong has always been a very real thing, distinct from what is normal, and it takes bravery and willingness to deviate from what is normal to stand for what is right. 

[Soylent Green]

What the hell are you talking about? Yes, if that remarkably improbable situation occurred, the individual would be "morally correct" according to his morals.

Fuck "his" morals.  SOME things are right or wrong, no wiggle room.  Some things aren't.  You chased off into weird pederasty defense to avoid admitting that you might have spoken too soon.

Ook, ook, dumbshit.

That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.

So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?

Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.

[Jasper]

The point is that there are culturally universal norms that, for whatever reason emerge as "right" and "wrong" in terms of realistic ethics.  It could be that these social laws emerged as evolutionary traits.  Perhaps humans are evolved to find pederasty deeply objectionable because of how damaging it is.  I think you'll find that truly culture-independent norms and ethics all have a common root in prosocial behavior.

As such, many cultural norms in this era are constantly changing or eroding, but the difference between the ones that change and the ones that don't is clearly demarcated by their function among human society.  Certain things will go in and out of vogue, such as what defines attractiveness, success, and happiness in life.  Some things are a bit more timeless than that, however, and the distinction is nontrivial.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What the hell are you talking about? Yes, if that remarkably improbable situation occurred, the individual would be "morally correct" according to his morals.

Fuck "his" morals.  SOME things are right or wrong, no wiggle room.  Some things aren't.  You chased off into weird pederasty defense to avoid admitting that you might have spoken too soon.

Ook, ook, dumbshit.

That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.

So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?

Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.

Name one culture where baby fucking is condoned.

[Soylent Green]

What the hell are you talking about? Yes, if that remarkably improbable situation occurred, the individual would be "morally correct" according to his morals.

Fuck "his" morals.  SOME things are right or wrong, no wiggle room.  Some things aren't.  You chased off into weird pederasty defense to avoid admitting that you might have spoken too soon.

Ook, ook, dumbshit.

That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.

So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?

Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.

Name one culture where baby fucking is condoned.

No culture like that would survive because all "normal" cultures are extremely against it, so they would naturally be against that culture.

And just because culture accepts something as moral or rejects it doesn't make it moral in the slightest.

For example, public homosexuality used to be illegal in some countries, yet now many people believe it to be just as moral as heterosexuality. Which is "right" and which is "wrong"?

[Fuquad]

What the hell are you talking about? Yes, if that remarkably improbable situation occurred, the individual would be "morally correct" according to his morals.

Fuck "his" morals.  SOME things are right or wrong, no wiggle room.  Some things aren't.  You chased off into weird pederasty defense to avoid admitting that you might have spoken too soon.

Ook, ook, dumbshit.

That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.

So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?

Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.

Name one culture where baby fucking is condoned.

No culture like that would survive because all "normal" cultures are extremely against it, so they would naturally be against that culture.

And just because culture accepts something as moral or rejects it doesn't make it moral in the slightest.

For example, public homosexuality used to be illegal in some countries, yet now many people believe it to be just as moral as heterosexuality. Which is "right" and which is "wrong"?

You're the one arguing that there is no absolute right or wrong. Roger is arguing that there is. You asking which is right and wrong based on your assumptions is just plain stupid.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No culture like that would survive because

Yeah, thanks.

[Payne]

"Morals" shouldn't mean "what I was told to believe in", but I understand that most definitions do not make this distinction.

The common definition usually stops at "a belief regarding what is Right and what is Wrong."  There is no clarification made for Thinking For Yourself, it allows blind belief as a basis of morality.

But perhaps that is all this word can give us: "Morality is just another Belief System".

So, maybe we should leave that word behind, and look for a new one... Because that definition allows for Soylent's shenanagins, i.e. if a child is taught something, and doesn't bother thinking it through, they can get away with calling it "morality", even though they aren't acting morally, they are acting like sleepwalking sheep.

Perhaps "ethics."  A general definition of ethics can be "the process of thought regarding moral questions."  That pretty much demands you think about what your moral beliefs are.  This gets us out from under the "I was raised this way" argument, and demands that a person thinks about their actions, and cannot fall back on blind observance of what they were told.

In that situation, you begin to approach the TGRR stance.  If you try to argue and defend fucking infants without the cover of "it's what I was taught", it becomes incredibly difficult not to sound like a goddamn psychopath.

So... tl;dr -- Both "morality" and "ethics" tend to be subjective, but "morality" allows for blind belief, while "ethics" does not.

by the way

[Bu🤠ns]

What the hell are you talking about? Yes, if that remarkably improbable situation occurred, the individual would be "morally correct" according to his morals.

Fuck "his" morals.  SOME things are right or wrong, no wiggle room.  Some things aren't.  You chased off into weird pederasty defense to avoid admitting that you might have spoken too soon.

Ook, ook, dumbshit.

That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.

So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?

Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.

You know, other people have posted ITT, too. 

Also, why are you assuming that the subjective is the only point of view? 




, Felix & LMNO

[Triple Zero]

That was the action you said was always morally wrong; therefore, I gave a reason where it would be moral to that person. You just seemed to be personally offended by that and decided to pursue the defense like it was the main point of the conversation. I mean god, I don't think that fucking infants is ok, but that is my OPINION, someone under the circumstances I gave would find it fine and according to his definition of right and wrong, he would be doing right.

well, let's say this hypothetical tribe of babyfuckers exists, and let's say they are reasonably pleasant people otherwise. would you defend their morality?

would you say "well, it's their culture, and they were raised like that, so that's okay." or would you be more like "WTF THATS NOT RIGHT"



no wait, I know, how about we make it a littlebit more real.

Afaik, there is no hypothetical tribe of babyfuckers.

There are, however, tribes in Africa, (or was it Fundie ME Muslim places, I forgot) where they amputate the female's clitoris as the girl reaches puberty. Some of them are also in the business of partly sewing the vagina shut in order so they bleed more when they lose their virginity (I shudder to think about the hygiene problems when they have their period).

So, this is of course all in the name of religious morality, and the people were culturally raised to think this is perfectly okay cause it's the Will of God and That is How it's Done. Except for the women, I suppose, but the religious morality dictates that their opinion does not matter.

I think you can guess my question to you now.

Do you think--this is almost too retarded to ask, but I can understand it's a tough one to wrap your head around until you really realize what sort of fucking awful things monkeys can and WILL actually do to eachother--that this is relatively moral?

Would you not say, hey I don't fucking care what their religious beliefs are but that is just fucking wrong in one of the most absolute senses of the word Wrong?

So answer the god damn question and stop diverting the conversation to make me look like the asshole who supports baby-fuckers and everything normal, sane people find horrible: How are right and wrong objective and not subjective?

I don't really have a good answer for how it's objective.

(Like where does it come from, etc. You can philosophize about that for ages but never really get anywhere)

I do, however, have a whole bunch of very good answers for how it's NOT subjective. See above.

Oh, but you will probably tell me that I am somehow a dumbass for actually trying to defend my point.

Roger has a kind of prescience for dumbassery.

In my eyes, you're really just digging real fast into a dumbasshole. But if you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you're getting.

[Z³]

Fuck, can we talk about Transmet?

Here is what I gleaned it:

Spider Jerusalem represents integrity. The kind of integrity that speaks the truth, he puts forth his own flaws in doing so, but he's intelligent enough to exploit the weaknesses of his opponents to accomplish his own ends. Although, he's a chaotic personality (which endears him to us), basically he takes extreme risks in order to catch a few people off guard and the only thing that saves him is the integrity of his assistants.

Essentially, Spider is a representation of integrity itself.

I'm surprised that somebody would think that Transmet didnt have strong moral themes.

Spider represents them.

[LMNO]

What's most revealing is when he reveals Truth at the price of his own well-being and happiness. 

"The Truth will set you free, but no one ever said it would make you happy." 
          - Me, just now.




Also, regarding the Morality fracas:  A lot of us here know about, and have accepted, the "fuzzy logic" model, which works on a sliding scale.  If we use the above definitions of "moral" and "ethical", we may be able to "average" them out [please note, the preceding language is abstract and metaphorical].

So, to take the idea of "helping your neighbor not starve to death", that would usually rate highly on both the moral and ethical scale (unless your neighbor is Pol Pot).  So, the Fuzzy Moral rating would be high.

On the other hand, genital mutilation of young girls may rate positive for some tribes (and, to be honest, perhaps only for some of the male elders who are in charge), but ethically it's a fucking nightmare.  So, that would rate much lower on the Fuzzy Moral scale.


Sure, it's not a perfect system, but it does point out the fact that just because you can call 5 different belief systems "moral", that doesn't make them equal.

[Requia ☣]

Moral Relativism *can't* exist.

You can have moral nihilism, or one of 31 different flavors of absolutism, or some bizarre combination of the two, but relativism requires that you contradict yourself.  Under relativism it is simultaneously ok and not ok to mutilate a 12 year old girl.

About the only way relativism makes sense is if you take an absolutist stance that you should do whatever the local society says.  And fuck that.