Results 1 to 40 of 78

Thread: Learned Helplessness and Confusing Yourself About Celibacy You Don't Prefer

Threaded View

  1. #13
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    On the endless seas of madness
    TIM
    We sail forevermore
    Posts
    2,292
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post

    Even if you're unable to "get a girl", that doesn't somehow turn into "wanting to lock a girl up". The latter is simply about lacking a moral or conscientious perspective, and hence it's sociopathic. It'd be like admitting that you're a sociopath.

    I think that my point here is to "have a moral perspective that counteracts immoral desires or actions". Your argument is that an otherwise "normal" or "healthy" desire turned into the extremes will morph into an evil desire. Well perhaps, but even so there's no excuse to oppose it from a moral perspective. If you lack it, then you are simply anti-social and sociopathic. It'll also start to create some obvious contradictions, such as that you personally fear the consequence of being locked up, but you'd still want to lock up another person.
    Wrong, where does our moral core come from? It's internalized from society. In ordinary people, this happens at such an early age that it becomes an instinct. Ultimately, it's programmed in - the moral core doesn't just pop out of the ground on its own unless something else actively instantiates it there.
    Social conditioning - that's forced upon people. So even "moral" people only grew up that way because they were forced into that mentality.

    Outside of this, I conjecture, the main glue that keeps societies running like clocks is mutual deterrence - everyone fearing force from everyone else if they slip up.

    In both cases, it's force, either soft-force or the implicit threat of hard-force, that gives all morality its backing. Frankly I don't find the line of "sociopath" very valid if a sociopath has no qualms against using violence, if the very precondition of social existence itself is also violence.


    ~~~

    “Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?” He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must “serve a higher cause.” – Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is – a purely egoistic cause.

    ~~~


    Then maybe you should tell, why the vast majority of women do not rape. Maybe here is one reason: perhaps it's about not objectifying the other person.
    Men got a cock, women typically don't.

    You don't have a body and a mind, you are a body! So you couldn't change male behavior unless in the process you eliminated what made them male.

    So to even address the very question of why men do some things and women do others is enough to invalidate the inquiry at the very outset. It's a useless question.
    Last edited by Grendel; 03-15-2021 at 04:01 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •