:clap: The Boy Owen got there first.

[Burney]

I expected some odd exchanges today but Burney morphing into Jeremy Corbyn is definitely a surprise

Oh, you mistake me, p. I don't actually care about the child in the Cambodian sweatshop in any meaningful sense, I'm just aware that he/she exists and have sufficient empathy and awareness to realise that his/her existence rather undermines some of our more high-flown rhetoric.

[Monty92]

I expected some odd exchanges today but Burney morphing into Jeremy Corbyn is definitely a surprise

It's the moral relativism that has shook me to the core

[Viva Prat Vegas]

Drinking is an overall benefit.

Not to the alcoholic individual

[Luis Anaconda]

Not to the alcoholic individual

IAHYK vpv. Cheers

[Ash]

They are objective truths in a scientific sense, since truth has an symbiotic relationship with science.

They're not. They're value judgements derived from hundreds of years of western liberal thought since the enlightenment. Claiming a scientific basis for them is untrue but they are OUR values for OUR civiliation, and when a bunch of cvnts go around blowing us up in our own manor until we submit to their backward values we must defend OUR values if there is to be any 'unity' around which to unite.

That means driving a bus throught the contemporary fake-liberal values of multicultural bubbles, "you can't say that" restrictions on free speech, and accepting the oppression of millions of women in the name of cultural diversity.

(It would also help if the West stopped backing Sunni head-choppers against their secular opponents but that's another story.)

[World's End Stella]

It's not deflection. Such a purely utilitarian analysis would, for instance, almost certainly conclude that disabled children would be best off being euthanised. After all, they will only ever be a drain and never contribute. Do we do that? Of course not. Why? Because our belief system (which, whether m likes it or not, is still based on Judaeo-Christian lines) tells us that to do so would be abhorrent.

However, my only point is that, while I am intensely glad that that is how we do things, trying to claim the reasoning behind it is scientific is nonsense.

Believe it or not, I'm sure you could come up with a measurable approach to proving that society would be better off without euthanasia.

However I agree with your second point. The way society has evolved is largely organic, without any pre-thought whatsoever. The fact that so much of it is scientifically justifiable is because of the number of variations and iterations that have occurred over time. We may not have planned it, but we do eventually get things right, us humans.

[Burney]

I've very intentionally not mentioned democracy or capitalism in any of my posts, yet your post makes it sound as if it's the bedrock of my argument. Not sure why you'v brought them up at all, to be honest, because I don't believe anything you've said in your post.

I see no mention of democracy or capitalism in my post, to be honest. I merely speak about the power relationships that exist between different groups of people globally and the fact that our system relies to a huge extent on us shītting on other people in other societies the world over who may not feel their sum of human happiness is quite what it might be.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

IAHYK vpv. Cheers

Your absorption capacity and continuing ability to function on a coherent and undead level would baffle any scientist

[redgunamo]

IAHYK vpv. Cheers

Precisely. I was gonna say, you don't see Ananconda complaining, do you.

[Peter]

Oh, you mistake me, p. I don't actually care about the child in the Cambodian sweatshop in any meaningful sense, I'm just aware that he/she exists and have sufficient empathy and awareness to realise that his/her existence rather undermines some of our more high-flown rhetoric.

It was also your insistence that the individual doesn't exist. You have become the anti-Thatcher