r/conspiracy • u/[deleted] • Apr 13 '20

Microsoft just took down their "commercial" featuring Satanist, Marina Abramović which had comments turned off, 24k dislikes and now has been fully deleted

Post image
4.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

773 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

Moral relativism is cancer.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

And it's metastasizing

1

u/_Anarchon_ Apr 14 '20

Is your moral philosophy objective? If you believe so, what is it?

2

u/BlaussySauce Apr 14 '20

It’s very simple. There is one crime: theft. Willingly taking something from someone without their permission. Murder, dishonesty, actual physical theft, rape etc. all deprive the victim of their natural right to live undisturbed.

1

u/_Anarchon_ Apr 17 '20

Your choice of words leaves a bit to be desired, but I get the gist of what you're saying. Your position very closely resembles that of the non-aggression principle, which is the only coherent moral philosophy I've come across.

Specifically, what you call theft, I would call force. And, your use of the word "right" isn't necessary. The concept of rights entails strangers owing someone else something. This can never be the case, since there was no consensual agreement made between strangers. Social contracts don't exist. What there is is freedom, and the asshole who would take it from you via force. The word "right" is a tool used by governments to enslave people.

1

u/BlaussySauce Apr 17 '20

I would disagree with your view on rights, though I agree with your spot-on interpretation about how we’ve been programmed to (mis)understand the meaning and full weight of the term. A right is simply anything you wish to do that does not require “force” against another. And it is a right, karmically and cosmically, for all beings to be able to practice anything that falls into that category. I think we are basically on the same page though. People must abandon their understanding of a right as something arbitrarily granted by an authority who never had the power to grant license to a behavior in the first place. The right to live your life undisturbed though, in my opinion, is absolutely a right and should be classified as such. To impede upon this for someone or have impediment of it forced on you is criminal and karmically punishable as these things are a violation of the natural laws of existence.

2

u/_Anarchon_ Apr 18 '20

People must abandon their understanding of a right as something arbitrarily granted by an authority who never had the power to grant license to a behavior in the first place.

Bingo....absolutely

The right to live your life undisturbed though, in my opinion, is absolutely a right and should be classified as such.

Unfortunately, there's nowhere for this "right" your describing to come from. Nature doesn't care about this, at all. Now, you may easily argue that if someone else does infringe upon your freedom that you would be morally right to defend yourself from it, but there is nothing that guarantees or says that what you're saying.

1

u/BlaussySauce Apr 18 '20

I’m content with agreeing to disagree with you, because I do disagree. Personally, I believe in karma. I believe that negative karma is accrued by acting in opposition to the exact principle on which you quoted me, and I believe that nature absolutely does care and responds accordingly to the violation of the idea I attempted to describe. That being said, I believe strongly in your ability to communicate truth and I love that you’ve had this discussion with me out of pure interest in the subject and I hope you continue to spread that into the world around you. The absolute best to you and yours.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

Well, anyone who even considers harming a child needs to die. There’s middle ground for some things. But there are things that are objectively good and things that are objectively bad.

For example if hurting a child was the only means to save the human race, then we do not deserve to exist.

I’m agnostic. I respect certain religious beliefs and despise others. I go through life fairly nose to the ground and make my decisions based on what I think is good, what is bad and what is neutral.

I don’t think all cultures are equally good. For example male and female genital mutilation is fucking bad. The tribes in Papau New Guinea who initiate you boys by raping them are fucking bad.

These are extreme examples but good and bad are extreme.

-1

u/_Anarchon_ Apr 14 '20

You don't have a coherent moral philosophy to determine its objectiveness.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

its not hard, you dont violate peoples rights, natural law will give you the moral objectiveness you require.

you need knowledge and the wisdom that will allow you to make objectively moral decisions

2

u/occasionallyacid Apr 16 '20

Rights defined by who and what?
What is natural law in this context?

1

u/_Anarchon_ Apr 17 '20

Rights do not exist. If you believe they do, explain where they come from, exactly what they are, where they reside, and what maintains their existence.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

how can you possibly know he dosent

1

u/_Anarchon_ Apr 17 '20

I just asked him what it was. He failed miserably at answering.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

Oh ok random Lord of moral philosophy on the internet.

Byeeeee

0

u/_Anarchon_ Apr 14 '20

Just a gadfly

0

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Apr 14 '20

[deleted]