Well, psychopath or not, I’d bet I blend in better than you two uncompromising libertarians.
We’re not interested in blending in. We’re interested in making the world a better place, even to the expense of our persons.
Negatory.
Keep trying though bloom. And no I don’t have to prove that. Again - signs of ignorance.
In fact, you’re so deranged it wouldn’t suprise me if you gained (psychically) as well as monetarily - from killing those innoceant people & stealing their diamonds…
All I was doing was introducing the concept of psychic profit / loss (which you laughed at and derided as mysticism), in addition to - what you seemed to be pre-occupied with as your only and sole consideration - monetary gain / loss.
Don’t worry, your physcopathic credentials are still intact.
Unreformable? Man what makes you think I want to be reformed by most of you guys? I think most of the people who attack me most of the time are idiots. I have no respect for them.
It’s only people like Lilburne, I Ryan, Kaju and others that make this site tolerable because they actually have a conversation instead of calling names and I respect them for that. And they don’t want to “reform” me.
Ok, but don’t talk to me about not blending in.
I mean by anyone. No one will ever be able to make you a normal human being. You won’t ever feel sorry for anyone else no matter what. ‘unreformable’
Please. You don’t enage in honest debate with people. We’ve been over this.
I’m pretty sure they’d prefer it if you wouldn’t murder people to get what you want.
Conza, you have still failed to show how I would stand to lose given my choice with Snowflake’s scenario. And you will continue to fail because the most rational decision would be to kill GIVEN THE PARAMETERS OF THE SCENARIO. The scenario, as Ero pointed out, is totally unrealistic anyways which makes it irrelevant. Either way, you two have managed to totally derail this thread in an attempt to get me banned or whatever it is you’re trying to do.
“You don’t enage in honest debate with people. We’ve been over this.”
Don’t presume to speak for them.
“I’m pretty sure they’d prefer it if you wouldn’t murder people to get what you want.”
They’d also probably come up with better scenarios.
Thought experiments are revealing.
Actually this is what derailed the thread.
I can speak on what I have observed.
Better for what? The only point of my scenario was to get you to admit that you haven’t a shred of empathy in you. Seems pretty successful.
And what was that in response to?
Lol, I have plenty of empathy, very little compassion. I can usually understand where people are coming from I just don’t tend to care about them unless I have a reason to.
I mean there’s a reason why I’m so polite.
distinction noted.
Fri. 10/05/21 13:08 EDT
.post #99
[url=Rand Paul...don't ever Stall Again, Stand Up For Private Property Rights - #49 by bloomj31]
I wouldn’t be doing it, so this blanket statement is wrong. I think you also make the mistake of assuming “everyone” is like you, i.e., your decision to murder is tempered only by the threat of legal consequences. It may be true for you, but not necessarily for others, so once again, I think you are not paying attention to reality. You substitute assumption for observation.
[url=Rand Paul...don't ever Stall Again, Stand Up For Private Property Rights - #28 by Cork]
I think this is very good, Cork.
Here’s my attempt:
I don’t believe we should have an official government policy of forcing peaceful individuals into or out of personal or business relationships, based on race. As a general principle, I oppose any governmental dictation to peaceful people about how they are to run their lives, businesses, and private property.
The use of the word “everyone” is technically incorrect but I can imagine that I would not be the only person to take that deal so while you might not take the deal, I think that so many people would that by the time I ever got there, there would be no diamonds left.
It is certainly an assumption that people are like me in that they care more about laws than morals but I also see that when something immoral is made legal, people don’t abstain.
I mean when you look at social programs, you can see that when the legal penalty of stealing is taken out, people will steal and line their own pockets with money they know not to be theirs. They come up with all sorts of pseudo rationalizations and call it a day but the lack of legal consequence gives grounds for such behavior in the first place.
Murder is just an act (like theft), people can attach any moral significance they want to it, but it’s an act like any other. If a person believes they have more to gain by murder than they do to lose, it seems questionable to assume that they’ll attach a so called “psychic penalty” to the act in order to control themselves. Either way, I know that I don’t attach such a high significance to moral considerations that I allow them to overrule more material concerns.
In this example, I’ve been told I stand to gain diamonds and that I might feel guilty about it. I only wish I could go to the diamond store right now and trade a feeling for diamonds. I can make feelings appear out of nowhere and make them go away just the same but I cannot summon forth diamonds from nowhere.
Wow.
A man who steals but doesn’t realize it would not steal under other circumstances. My roommates could rob me blind and I’d never know it. They don’t because even though they support they state they don’t actually support theft. They’re simply mistaken.
Its also similar to the way that Christians support God’s right to kill, but do not do so themselves. People can hold a double moral standard. They’re kidding themselves but that doesn’t make them cold blooded killers.
You are really not like the rest of us.
The only difference between myself and them is that I don’t rationalize my preferences. I know what I want I know how it’s gotten and I’m ok with it because I get what I want. I am just like everyone else in that I measure options based on self interest, I just don’t shackle myself with any set restrictions and I don’t need to feel like I’m morally justified in my actions. I fear punishment and consequences but if there are no punishments or consequences, I fear nothing. I have no reason to be “good” if I have no reason to fear being “bad” and that’s perfectly rational.
My roommates don’t rationalize not stealing from me. They don’t because they don’t want to hurt me. For its own sake. This is how you are different from other people.
By definition, everyone does. Except for 99% of people, ‘self interest’ includes caring about other people.
“By definition, everyone does. Except for 99% of people, ‘self interest’ includes caring about other people.”
But in your example, I have no reason to care. It’s actually in my interest not to care. You should just kick yourself for setting up bad rules. Don’t blame me for playing the game in an intelligent way.
Your roommates still rationalize stealing when it comes to the government. They advocate stealing but can’t admit it. I’m just more advanced than they are, not fundamentally different.