The True Root of All Evil...

[PainefulTruth]

No. Love your neighbor AS yourself.

The root of ALL evil is a moral double standard. Name one immoral act that doesn't have the perp putting the value of his rights over the value of the rights of the victim(s)--never equal to them.

If you value your rights below others, you're hanging a sign around your neck saying "Ready-made Victim", but at least you're not being selfish.

Well, maybe I wasn’t clear. This isn’t about self-sacrifice at all costs, it’s about treating yourself as an equal part of a whole. You do things to serve the whole, vs just serving yourself and your individual pleasures. This doesn’t mean you can’t defend yourself, because YOU are part of that whole that you are serving, and therefore your wellbeing/evolution is just as valuable as anyone else’s.

That's very close to what I call enlightened self-interest. You risk yourself to defend the Truth and righteousness as an example for others to do the same. But so often, particularly today, we're viewed as inferior if we don't put the group ahead of ourselves no matter what. Selfishness of any sort is deemed to be "immoral".

To wit:

Acting selflessly is doing the will of the universal whole - all the time, without exception.

Acting on behalf of the whole because it makes you feel good personally is a selfish act, but acting on behalf of the whole because you love absolutely everything and everyone - and see no separation from the needs of the self and the needs of others - that is acting (by definition) selflessly.

That's layer upon layer of psychobabble. So...what...act on behalf of the universal whole but don't let yourself feel good about it?

What is the "Universal Whole"?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

That's right libtard, stealing is the same as giving. Taking is the same as providing. Rape is the same as consent. No difference whatsoever, because they are all selfish. ROFL just have to see the evils acts as "good" things. Friggin satan worshiper.

Stealing is the same as giving? Taking is the same as providing? Rape is the same as consent? Just because they're all selfish doesn't mean they're all the same. That's my point. If selfishness is inevitable, then one would logically stop using it as the dividing line between good and bad. I don't use it as a dividing line, so the fact that all these acts are selfish does -not- make them the same. Again, pull your dogma out of the equation and you might actually understand what I'm saying.

I don't know how much more simple I could make this. IF selfishness encompasses all decisions, than good and bad aren't functions of selfishness, they'd necessarily be separated from the concept altogether. All evil acts are selfish and all good acts are selfish, but that doesn't make them morally equivalent. There are other factors to consider, obviously.

Anjd what's this libtard, satan worshipper shit? You realize that on political issues you and I see virtually eye-to-eye, yes?

I'm also an agnostic, not a worshipper of -anything-

ROFL your agnostic but you claim to be the decider of what is evil. ROFL

More bullshit rhetoric? The decider of evil? Everyone is the decider of evil. Every person sees through their own window, so yes. I have my own views on what is evil. I don't claim that these views are factual, at some point you can boil down any of our philosophies to a dogmatic base.

Again, you got anything substantive to say? Or you just trying to condescend from a dipshit perspective again?

 

[RKMBrown]

Stealing is the same as giving? Taking is the same as providing? Rape is the same as consent? Just because they're all selfish doesn't mean they're all the same. That's my point. If selfishness is inevitable, then one would logically stop using it as the dividing line between good and bad. I don't use it as a dividing line, so the fact that all these acts are selfish does -not- make them the same. Again, pull your dogma out of the equation and you might actually understand what I'm saying.

I don't know how much more simple I could make this. IF selfishness encompasses all decisions, than good and bad aren't functions of selfishness, they'd necessarily be separated from the concept altogether. All evil acts are selfish and all good acts are selfish, but that doesn't make them morally equivalent. There are other factors to consider, obviously.

Anjd what's this libtard, satan worshipper shit? You realize that on political issues you and I see virtually eye-to-eye, yes?

I'm also an agnostic, not a worshipper of -anything-

ROFL your agnostic but you claim to be the decider of what is evil. ROFL

More bullshit rhetoric? The decider of evil? Everyone is the decider of evil. Every person sees through their own window, so yes. I have my own views on what is evil. I don't claim that these views are factual, at some point you can boil down any of our philosophies to a dogmatic base.

Again, you got anything substantive to say? Or you just trying to condescend from a dipshit perspective again?

Make up your mind, pud whacker. Either everyone gets to have their own views on what is evil or just you.

 

[KevinWestern]

No. Love your neighbor AS yourself.

The root of ALL evil is a moral double standard. Name one immoral act that doesn't have the perp putting the value of his rights over the value of the rights of the victim(s)--never equal to them.

If you value your rights below others, you're hanging a sign around your neck saying "Ready-made Victim", but at least you're not being selfish.

Well, maybe I wasn’t clear. This isn’t about self-sacrifice at all costs, it’s about treating yourself as an equal part of a whole. You do things to serve the whole, vs just serving yourself and your individual pleasures. This doesn’t mean you can’t defend yourself, because YOU are part of that whole that you are serving, and therefore your wellbeing/evolution is just as valuable as anyone else’s.

That's very close to what I call enlightened self-interest. You risk yourself to defend the Truth and righteousness as an example for others to do the same. But so often, particularly today, we're viewed as inferior if we don't put the group ahead of ourselves no matter what. Selfishness of any sort is deemed to be "immoral".

To wit:

Acting selflessly is doing the will of the universal whole - all the time, without exception.

Acting on behalf of the whole because it makes you feel good personally is a selfish act, but acting on behalf of the whole because you love absolutely everything and everyone - and see no separation from the needs of the self and the needs of others - that is acting (by definition) selflessly.

That's layer upon layer of psychobabble. So...what...act on behalf of the universal whole but don't let yourself feel good about it?

What is the "Universal Whole"?

Psychobabble? What's the purpose of being so confrontational right of the bat, lol? Does that make you feel good or something?

As I've mentioned before, there's a spiritual element tied up in this thread. That spiritual element is the belief that "everything is one" and that there's such a thing call the "flow" (or will) of the universe. I believe that through mediation and other techniques, one can completely transcend the ego and selfishness, and feel as "one" with the entire universe.

At that point, the person is concerned with the whole, and not just the self. But note, the whole includes the "individual" as well so I'm not talking about senseless self sacrifice.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

ROFL your agnostic but you claim to be the decider of what is evil. ROFL

More bullshit rhetoric? The decider of evil? Everyone is the decider of evil. Every person sees through their own window, so yes. I have my own views on what is evil. I don't claim that these views are factual, at some point you can boil down any of our philosophies to a dogmatic base.

Again, you got anything substantive to say? Or you just trying to condescend from a dipshit perspective again?

Make up your mind, pud whacker. Either everyone gets to have their own views on what is evil or just you.

I'm sorry, did I force you to abandon your morals with this argument? I fail to see where that happened.

I never said nobody else gets to have views on what is evil. I said that people who believe that selflessness is possible for humans are incorrect. This has nothing to do with me deciding what is factually evil. Where are you getting that?

You either have some serious logic and reading comprehension issues, or at this point you're just grasping at random straws to feel like you won the argument.

Either way, you're fuckin sad.

I just noticed, your last 4 posts were -all- accusing me of saying things I never said and/or being things that I am not, then calling me stupid for those things. You haven't presented a -single- point in any of them or attempted to address anything that I've actually said. In fact, it's been days since you've even made an attempt, even a poor attempt, to illustrate how what I've said implies anything that you've accused me of saying. Just nothing. Unbacked accusations followed by insults. Holy shit, why am I still talking to you? I'm just gonna go ahead and call you a fucktard and leave it at that. Good "debate", dummy.

 

[RKMBrown]

More bullshit rhetoric? The decider of evil? Everyone is the decider of evil. Every person sees through their own window, so yes. I have my own views on what is evil. I don't claim that these views are factual, at some point you can boil down any of our philosophies to a dogmatic base.

Again, you got anything substantive to say? Or you just trying to condescend from a dipshit perspective again?

Make up your mind, pud whacker. Either everyone gets to have their own views on what is evil or just you.

I'm sorry, did I force you to abandon your morals with this argument? I fail to see where that happened.

I never said nobody else gets to have views on what is evil. I said that people who believe that selflessness is possible for humans are incorrect. This has nothing to do with me deciding what is factually evil. Where are you getting that?

You either have some serious logic and reading comprehension issues, or at this point you're just grasping at random straws to feel like you won the argument.

Either way, you're fuckin sad.

I just noticed, your last 4 posts were -all- accusing me of saying things I never said and/or being things that I am not, then calling me stupid for those things. You haven't presented a -single- point in any of them or attempted to address anything that I've actually said. In fact, it's been days since you've even made an attempt, even a poor attempt, to illustrate how what I've said implies anything that you've accused me of saying. Just nothing. Unbacked accusations followed by insults. Holy shit, why am I still talking to you? I'm just gonna go ahead and call you a fucktard and leave it at that. Good "debate", dummy.

Everyone but you is "incorrect" must be fantastic to be a god unto yourself. You can't even determine the difference between a question and an accusation. What a sorry piece of shit dumb ass you are.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Make up your mind, pud whacker. Either everyone gets to have their own views on what is evil or just you.

I'm sorry, did I force you to abandon your morals with this argument? I fail to see where that happened.

I never said nobody else gets to have views on what is evil. I said that people who believe that selflessness is possible for humans are incorrect. This has nothing to do with me deciding what is factually evil. Where are you getting that?

You either have some serious logic and reading comprehension issues, or at this point you're just grasping at random straws to feel like you won the argument.

Either way, you're fuckin sad.

I just noticed, your last 4 posts were -all- accusing me of saying things I never said and/or being things that I am not, then calling me stupid for those things. You haven't presented a -single- point in any of them or attempted to address anything that I've actually said. In fact, it's been days since you've even made an attempt, even a poor attempt, to illustrate how what I've said implies anything that you've accused me of saying. Just nothing. Unbacked accusations followed by insults. Holy shit, why am I still talking to you? I'm just gonna go ahead and call you a fucktard and leave it at that. Good "debate", dummy.

Everyone but you is "incorrect" must be fantastic to be a god unto yourself. You can't even determine the difference between a question and an accusation. What a sorry piece of shit dumb ass you are.

You're intentionally being -so- ******* ignorant that I can't even help myself.

First off, I'm not nearly the only person that feels this way. It's a viewpoint pretty typical of Libertarians, actually, going back to Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein and beyond. IN fact, Rand's rational self-interest philosophy pretty much revolves around the same basic idea I've been presenting. So to say that I feel that everyone else is incorrect is just stupid. This is simply the philosophical premise I buy into. Obviously, you have your own philosophical premises that you feel are correct? Or am I unique, here?

Next, questions and accusations are pretty easy to tell apart, but maybe my count was slightly off. Let's go post by post for those 4 posts in question.

"Lib thinks buying candy for everyone because you wanted everyone to have candy is the exact same level of selfish as as stealing candy for yourself.

Yeah libs are that dumb."

IN this post, you don't ask me anything. You accuse me of being a lib and you accuse me of thinking that buying candy for everyone and stealing candy for ones self are morally equivalent. GEt it? No questions, 2 accusations. That's 1 for 1. Next post.

"That's right libtard, stealing is the same as giving. Taking is the same as providing. Rape is the same as consent. No difference whatsoever, because they are all selfish. ROFL just have to see the evils acts as "good" things. Friggin satan worshiper. "

Once again, this post contains not a single question. Again, you accuse me of being a lib(tard). Then you accuse me of saying that stealing is the same as giving, etc, NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, because they are all selfish, which isn't what I said. It's simply your incorrect and poorly thought out assumption of my meaning. Then you accuse me of being a Satan worshipper, again which I am not. That's 3 accusations and 0questions in that post. 2 for 2. Next.

"ROFL your agnostic but you claim to be the decider of what is evil. ROFL"

I'm not seeing a question, unless ROFL is a question. I do see you accusing me of believing myself to be the decider of what is evil. Don't recall ever saying that and, in fact, no matter how many times I read that post, I can't figure out where you're even imagining that I implied it. That's 1 accusation and 0 questions. 3 for 3.

"Make up your mind, pud whacker. Either everyone gets to have their own views on what is evil or just you."

You see any question marks in this post? Yeah, me either. I give you this, though: In this post you only -implied- an accusation. This makes it a stand-out on my list. The implied accusation is that I contradicted myself by, in the post prior to the one to which you were responding, stating or implying that my views on good and evil were the correct views. I notice you didn't ever explain what it is that I said that gave you that particular idea, but that's a separate point. The point is, I did -not- say any such thing, thus the implied accusation (that I'm inconsistent about whether or not I'm a factual moral authority) is incorrect. That's 1 accusation and 0 questions. 4 for 4. Each of those 4 posts, exactly as I said, contains false accusations. None of those posts, despite what you said, posed a -single- question. Not ******* 1. Who doesn't understand what, now?

You're really gonna call -me- fuckin stupid when -you're- too much of an idiot to understand what -you- said? Holy ****. You're either unforgiveably full of shit or simply too dumb for words. I'll let you decide.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm sorry, did I force you to abandon your morals with this argument? I fail to see where that happened.

I never said nobody else gets to have views on what is evil. I said that people who believe that selflessness is possible for humans are incorrect. This has nothing to do with me deciding what is factually evil. Where are you getting that?

You either have some serious logic and reading comprehension issues, or at this point you're just grasping at random straws to feel like you won the argument.

Either way, you're fuckin sad.

I just noticed, your last 4 posts were -all- accusing me of saying things I never said and/or being things that I am not, then calling me stupid for those things. You haven't presented a -single- point in any of them or attempted to address anything that I've actually said. In fact, it's been days since you've even made an attempt, even a poor attempt, to illustrate how what I've said implies anything that you've accused me of saying. Just nothing. Unbacked accusations followed by insults. Holy shit, why am I still talking to you? I'm just gonna go ahead and call you a fucktard and leave it at that. Good "debate", dummy.

Everyone but you is "incorrect" must be fantastic to be a god unto yourself. You can't even determine the difference between a question and an accusation. What a sorry piece of shit dumb ass you are.

You're intentionally being -so- ******* ignorant that I can't even help myself.

First off, I'm not nearly the only person that feels this way. It's a viewpoint pretty typical of Libertarians, actually, going back to Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein and beyond. IN fact, Rand's rational self-interest philosophy pretty much revolves around the same basic idea I've been presenting. So to say that I feel that everyone else is incorrect is just stupid. This is simply the philosophical premise I buy into. Obviously, you have your own philosophical premises that you feel are correct? Or am I unique, here?

Next, questions and accusations are pretty easy to tell apart, but maybe my count was slightly off. Let's go post by post for those 4 posts in question.

"Lib thinks buying candy for everyone because you wanted everyone to have candy is the exact same level of selfish as as stealing candy for yourself.

Yeah libs are that dumb."

IN this post, you don't ask me anything. You accuse me of being a lib and you accuse me of thinking that buying candy for everyone and stealing candy for ones self are morally equivalent. GEt it? No questions, 2 accusations. That's 1 for 1. Next post.

"That's right libtard, stealing is the same as giving. Taking is the same as providing. Rape is the same as consent. No difference whatsoever, because they are all selfish. ROFL just have to see the evils acts as "good" things. Friggin satan worshiper. "

Once again, this post contains not a single question. Again, you accuse me of being a lib(tard). Then you accuse me of saying that stealing is the same as giving, etc, NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, because they are all selfish, which isn't what I said. It's simply your incorrect and poorly thought out assumption of my meaning. Then you accuse me of being a Satan worshipper, again which I am not. That's 3 accusations and 0questions in that post. 2 for 2. Next.

"ROFL your agnostic but you claim to be the decider of what is evil. ROFL"

I'm not seeing a question, unless ROFL is a question. I do see you accusing me of believing myself to be the decider of what is evil. Don't recall ever saying that and, in fact, no matter how many times I read that post, I can't figure out where you're even imagining that I implied it. That's 1 accusation and 0 questions. 3 for 3.

"Make up your mind, pud whacker. Either everyone gets to have their own views on what is evil or just you."

You see any question marks in this post? Yeah, me either. I give you this, though: In this post you only -implied- an accusation. This makes it a stand-out on my list. The implied accusation is that I contradicted myself by, in the post prior to the one to which you were responding, stating or implying that my views on good and evil were the correct views. I notice you didn't ever explain what it is that I said that gave you that particular idea, but that's a separate point. The point is, I did -not- say any such thing, thus the implied accusation (that I'm inconsistent about whether or not I'm a factual moral authority) is incorrect. That's 1 accusation and 0 questions. 4 for 4. Each of those 4 posts, exactly as I said, contains false accusations. None of those posts, despite what you said, posed a -single- question. Not ******* 1. Who doesn't understand what, now?

You're really gonna call -me- fuckin stupid when -you're- too much of an idiot to understand what -you- said? Holy ****. You're either unforgiveably full of shit or simply too dumb for words. I'll let you decide.

Piece of shit lying ass hole prick can't keep track of the questions being discussed. What a dumb ass.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Everyone but you is "incorrect" must be fantastic to be a god unto yourself. You can't even determine the difference between a question and an accusation. What a sorry piece of shit dumb ass you are.

You're intentionally being -so- ******* ignorant that I can't even help myself.

First off, I'm not nearly the only person that feels this way. It's a viewpoint pretty typical of Libertarians, actually, going back to Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein and beyond. IN fact, Rand's rational self-interest philosophy pretty much revolves around the same basic idea I've been presenting. So to say that I feel that everyone else is incorrect is just stupid. This is simply the philosophical premise I buy into. Obviously, you have your own philosophical premises that you feel are correct? Or am I unique, here?

Next, questions and accusations are pretty easy to tell apart, but maybe my count was slightly off. Let's go post by post for those 4 posts in question.

"Lib thinks buying candy for everyone because you wanted everyone to have candy is the exact same level of selfish as as stealing candy for yourself.

Yeah libs are that dumb."

IN this post, you don't ask me anything. You accuse me of being a lib and you accuse me of thinking that buying candy for everyone and stealing candy for ones self are morally equivalent. GEt it? No questions, 2 accusations. That's 1 for 1. Next post.

"That's right libtard, stealing is the same as giving. Taking is the same as providing. Rape is the same as consent. No difference whatsoever, because they are all selfish. ROFL just have to see the evils acts as "good" things. Friggin satan worshiper. "

Once again, this post contains not a single question. Again, you accuse me of being a lib(tard). Then you accuse me of saying that stealing is the same as giving, etc, NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, because they are all selfish, which isn't what I said. It's simply your incorrect and poorly thought out assumption of my meaning. Then you accuse me of being a Satan worshipper, again which I am not. That's 3 accusations and 0questions in that post. 2 for 2. Next.

"ROFL your agnostic but you claim to be the decider of what is evil. ROFL"

I'm not seeing a question, unless ROFL is a question. I do see you accusing me of believing myself to be the decider of what is evil. Don't recall ever saying that and, in fact, no matter how many times I read that post, I can't figure out where you're even imagining that I implied it. That's 1 accusation and 0 questions. 3 for 3.

"Make up your mind, pud whacker. Either everyone gets to have their own views on what is evil or just you."

You see any question marks in this post? Yeah, me either. I give you this, though: In this post you only -implied- an accusation. This makes it a stand-out on my list. The implied accusation is that I contradicted myself by, in the post prior to the one to which you were responding, stating or implying that my views on good and evil were the correct views. I notice you didn't ever explain what it is that I said that gave you that particular idea, but that's a separate point. The point is, I did -not- say any such thing, thus the implied accusation (that I'm inconsistent about whether or not I'm a factual moral authority) is incorrect. That's 1 accusation and 0 questions. 4 for 4. Each of those 4 posts, exactly as I said, contains false accusations. None of those posts, despite what you said, posed a -single- question. Not ******* 1. Who doesn't understand what, now?

You're really gonna call -me- fuckin stupid when -you're- too much of an idiot to understand what -you- said? Holy ****. You're either unforgiveably full of shit or simply too dumb for words. I'll let you decide.

Piece of shit lying ass hole prick can't keep track of the questions being discussed. What a dumb ass.

Lol. Don't address anything I've said. Just call me a liar after I've demonstrated the truth of my statement. You're awesome!

Just for kicks, though I know you won't give an honest answer -or- a single example. . . what part of that post was the lie?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Holy shit you even neg repped me for a post where I went line by line and explained how my take on what you said was true! I wasn't even a dick about most of it, just straight factual.

Must've hit a nerve lol

I find people that resort to dishonesty to avoid admitting defeat (people like you) are also typically people who get most hostile when forced to recognize things about themselves of which they disapprove. Seems likely to be your psychological profile to a T. Your arguments on other posts tend toward logic, and your debate style tends toward self control. I can imagine that giving into the desire to call me names when you can't prove me wrong is pretty embarrassing.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think I've given both Subjugated and RKM pos reps throughout this experience. What are you guys arguing about exactly?

 

[RKMBrown]

I think I've given both Subjugated and RKM pos reps throughout this experience. What are you guys arguing about exactly?

I asked for a sort of choices 1-8 or so. He came back and said you can't, all choices are the same therefore they, can't be sorted. I pointed out the obvious fact that choices can in fact be sorted, and that only a lying jerk would argue a selfish choice (1) is the same choice as a less selfish choice (8). Then he proceeded to say I never asked any questions... yeah the one about sorting choices and the following discussion about differences between a pro and a con making it easy to sort (choose selfish over selfless).

IOW he's either a bold faced POS liar, or at minimum suffering from some form of extreme delusion.

 

[RKMBrown]

Here let me help you.

1) steal the candy for yourself
2) steal the candy for your kids
3) steal the candy for everyone
4) don't steal the candy and walk away
5) buy the candy for yourself
6) buy the candy for your girlfriend
7) buy the candy for your kids
8) buy the candy for everyone
9) buy the candy for everyone but yourself

Order these by magnitude of selfishness. Then tell me how humans are incapable of choosing selfishness over selflessness.

Here... he can't seem to find this question..

 

[RKMBrown]

Here let me help you.

1) steal the candy for yourself
2) steal the candy for your kids
3) steal the candy for everyone
4) don't steal the candy and walk away
5) buy the candy for yourself
6) buy the candy for your girlfriend
7) buy the candy for your kids
8) buy the candy for everyone
9) buy the candy for everyone but yourself

Order these by magnitude of selfishness. Then tell me how humans are incapable of choosing selfishness over selflessness.

I can't order them by magnitude of selfishness. That's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness. In stead, I'll tell you why they're all selfish.

1) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted me to have it.
2) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
3) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted everyone (except, apparently, the store owner) to have it.
4) Selfish. I didn't steal the candy because -I- would rather walk away than steal it.
5) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- valued having the candy more than I valued having the money it cost.
6) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my girlfriend to have it.
7) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
8) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted everyone to have some.
9) Selfish. I gave out the candy because it was more important to -me- that others eat it than that I eat it.

Get it? No matter what your motives are, you can't remove the "I" and the "me" from the action. It's impossible. You're nobody's puppet.

This was his answer that he denies he made.

 

[RKMBrown]

Then a few posts later he denies this discussion ever even started.. by quoting me completely out of context. Picking and choosing sentences to make up yet another bold face lie.

The prick can't write a single sentence with even a shred of truth in it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Then a few posts later he denies this discussion ever even started.. by quoting me completely out of context. Picking and choosing sentences to make up yet another bold face lie.

The prick can't write a single sentence with even a shred of truth in it.

So far you are massively embarrassing yourself (and The Duke) because you have not pointed out a single lie.
That word has a meaning, and it doesn't mean "things I disagree with".

 

[PainefulTruth]

Well, maybe I wasn’t clear. This isn’t about self-sacrifice at all costs, it’s about treating yourself as an equal part of a whole. You do things to serve the whole, vs just serving yourself and your individual pleasures. This doesn’t mean you can’t defend yourself, because YOU are part of that whole that you are serving, and therefore your wellbeing/evolution is just as valuable as anyone else’s.

That sounds good to me.

Acting selflessly is doing the will of the universal whole - all the time, without exception.

So wealth redistribution no matter the talents and drive you brought to your endeavors? And by no exception do you mean no legal double standard for anyone including an elite/leader class?

As I've mentioned before, there's a spiritual element tied up in this thread. That spiritual element is the belief that "everything is one" and that there's such a thing call the "flow" (or will) of the universe. I believe that through mediation and other techniques, one can completely transcend the ego and selfishness, and feel as "one" with the entire universe.

At that point, the person is concerned with the whole, and not just the self. But note, the whole includes the "individual" as well so I'm not talking about senseless self sacrifice.

I believe (only believe) everything is one, but I don't make it into a flow or will of the universe. That's pure religious opinion that you're trying to use to manipulate or force others to follow your beliefs. It's no different than an evangelistic tent meeting talking about being saved and born again only because you believe that Jesus died for your sins. And if you don't believe (aced to the whole) , you're going to hell (social ostracism or prison).

 

[RKMBrown]

Then a few posts later he denies this discussion ever even started.. by quoting me completely out of context. Picking and choosing sentences to make up yet another bold face lie.

The prick can't write a single sentence with even a shred of truth in it.

So far you are massively embarrassing yourself (and The Duke) because you have not pointed out a single lie.
That word has a meaning, and it doesn't mean "things I disagree with".

Nonsense. Learn to read.

 

[KevinWestern]

So wealth redistribution no matter the talents and drive you brought to your endeavors? And by no exception do you mean no legal double standard for anyone including an elite/leader class?

This is more of a spiritual discussion vs a discussion of political systems in today's world setting. It's saying "what if" everyone could elevate themselves to behave unselfishly, and work towards the best outcome of the whole. In that scenario, everyone would consider themselves as "one" - part of the whole - and thus there would exist not an elite class, or a poor class (because those are just representations of further separation/individuality).

Again, don't mistake me as a socialist, etc pushing for a communist system, etc. Again, this is purely a spiritual/moral discussion. Achieving enlightenment, selflessness, is something that cannot be forced by a state or governing body; it must (instead) be achieved in a free environment.

I believe (only believe) everything is one, but I don't make it into a flow or will of the universe. That's pure religious opinion that you're trying to use to manipulate or force others to follow your beliefs. It's no different than an evangelistic tent meeting talking about being saved and born again only because you believe that Jesus died for your sins. And if you don't believe (aced to the whole) , you're going to hell (social ostracism or prison).

Do we all not think though Paineful? Doesn't each one of us have thoughts, by which will drive our manipulation of the environment and the world around us? Since we all think, and are conscious, and (if you believe) are all one, wouldn't there be some sort of interconnected direction all of our collective thoughts/ideas/etc are leading us?

I don't understand how you could conclude that is a "religious" argument. I don't think it is at all.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Here let me help you.

1) steal the candy for yourself
2) steal the candy for your kids
3) steal the candy for everyone
4) don't steal the candy and walk away
5) buy the candy for yourself
6) buy the candy for your girlfriend
7) buy the candy for your kids
8) buy the candy for everyone
9) buy the candy for everyone but yourself

Order these by magnitude of selfishness. Then tell me how humans are incapable of choosing selfishness over selflessness.

I can't order them by magnitude of selfishness. That's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness. In stead, I'll tell you why they're all selfish.

1) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted me to have it.
2) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
3) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted everyone (except, apparently, the store owner) to have it.
4) Selfish. I didn't steal the candy because -I- would rather walk away than steal it.
5) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- valued having the candy more than I valued having the money it cost.
6) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my girlfriend to have it.
7) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
8) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted everyone to have some.
9) Selfish. I gave out the candy because it was more important to -me- that others eat it than that I eat it.

Get it? No matter what your motives are, you can't remove the "I" and the "me" from the action. It's impossible. You're nobody's puppet.

This was his answer that he denies he made.

When did I deny this answer? I denied the implication of your responses, which seemed to be that if I acknowledge that these are all selfish, then I have to acknowledge that they are all morally equivalent.

I don't believe these to be morally equivalent acts. When I brought that up, implying that I have a set of morals, you then accused me of claiming that I decide which of these acts are good and which are evil.

All you've done, rather than argue with my answers, is assume crazy shit about them and then call me an idiot and a liar.

I'm sorry, but that part is true, regardless of whether or not I was right about why you were throwing such a shit-fit after I said all those acts are selfish. I can't be 100 percent sure that the moral difference not equating to a selfishness difference in my mind is what threw you into this tailspin, but I do know that my analysis of what you've been doing since then has been RIGHT ON. Undeniably.