Understanding what Universally Preferable Behavior is..
.jpg)
This is the absolute , stripped down interpretation of UPB - as I understand it.
Reality is composed of objects in the universe. They adhere to the laws of physics.
These interactions and events are reproducible or consistent.
Logic is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from reality.
A theory that is confirmed by observable evidence in reality is considered accurate.
Truth: A theory that is accurate, is true.
Preferences can only exist in people’s minds, meaning that they are subjective.
Observable human actions are the objective manifestations of subjective preferences.
And so....
Preferable Behavior
When somebody says that some other human being should do something - he is making a statement about preferable behavior.
Universally Preferable Behavior
When somebody says that all people at all times and at all places should do something, then he is making a statement about universally preferable behavior (UPB). He is proposing a “universal rule”.
e.g Not Killing other people is a UPB. Not stealing is a UPB.
UPB is any behavior that all humans at all times and at all places could follow for a productive and cohesive society.
All people at all times and at all places would rather prefer truth to falsehood.
This is not pure logic. Nor accurate.
Human beings are not living in a purely logical reality. Pointing out the obvious illogic of the argument only serves to highlighting the exceptions to the rule, and the observer willfully not understanding the broader concept.
Being a pedantic twat is not a sign of intelligence - quite the opposite.
Intellectualism for it's own sake is embarrassing. And stupid.
Context matters.
So, moving on..
Morality is defined as the examination of universal rules, and ethics are then the actions taken - based on those universal rules of morality e.g "Thou shalt not kill".
“Universal Ethics” is a good substitute for “UPB”, imo.
The point of the UPB framework is to establish the process of examining the truth (validity+accuracy).
True ethical theory needs to be consistent (valid) and empirically verifiable (accurate).
The application of UPB
Morality,
Aesthetics,
Other ( statements that do not refer to universal, but personal - subjective - preferences).
.jpg)
Morality is the relevant one.
Violence, murder, and theft are morality questions.
Rape involves the use of violence.
Any statement about universally preferable behavior involving rape falls into the category of morality.
The statement “It is universally preferable to rape” fails the test of logical consistency.
One person needs to do the raping, the other has to be raped.
The person who is being raped doesn't rape the other person.
The only valid moral statement regarding rape is “It is universally preferable NOT to rape.”
“Rape is immoral.”
Murder involves violence.
Any statement about universally preferable behavior involving murder falls into the category of morality.
The statement “It is universally preferable to murder” fails the test of logical consistency.
One person needs to do the murdering, the other needs to be murdered.
The person who is being murdered can’t himself murder the other person.
Thus the only valid moral statement regarding murder is “It is universally preferable NOT to murder.”
“Murder is immoral.”
Theft involves the use of violence. Any statement about universally preferable behavior involving theft falls into the category of morality.
The statement “It is universally preferable to steal.” fails the test of logical consistency.
_ Theft also implies that the theory that property rights are invalid_.
If property rights are invalid - it is logically consistent to obtain ownership using violence (since property rights are invalid).
But the act of obtaining property, then automatically validates property rights..
Thus the only valid moral statement regarding theft is “It is universally preferable NOT to steal.”
“Theft is immoral.”
I'm sure you get the point now, in regard to applying universally preferable behavior...
Our political institutions are founded upon blatantly immoral premises.
The idea that “A government is a moral or necessary institution.” implies that theft is a fundamentally moral .
Coercion (taxation), is not logically consistent.
The military of course - is also an institution founded upon blatantly immoral ideas- are simply one massive logical inconsistency.
The only moral system is that of voluntaryism.
.jpg)
80-90%% of all human beings (excluding the sociopath, psychopaths and malignant narcissistics).... Feel an emotional abhorrence to human behaviors that fail to recognize these principles of UPB.
This is self evident across millennia, and all cultures.
Religion has - over the centuries - attempted to 'organize' those moral principles - but must always fall short, when they themselves become immoral and thus part of the 'parasite' class.
Atheism stripped those moral frameworks away and never even attempted to replace it with any alternative.
This must rank as one of the biggest evils ever. Take away a usable morale framework for people to understand the world (no matter how faulty the framework) - and then replace it with...NOTHING.
A vacuum...nothingness.
Fuck me, that's evil.
(interesting stat: 80% of atheists self identify with the political left and communism...I'll just leave that here, because that's a whole other post).
UPB looks at human behavior and establishes that moral rules are not behavioral absolutes, but statements about preferable choices.
The validity of those behaviors are always subject to logic and proof.
.jpg)
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
Hi there, in an effort to better understand who was having such an involved debate on my post I came to look at yours and we're obviously in broad agreement (my slightly inflammatory headlines aside).
There's an interesting inconsistency above (which couldn't happen if this was in Hebrew):
"e.g Not Killing other people is a UPB. Not stealing is a UPB."
On the picture of the 10 Commandments number 5, which is more properly number 6 in the Hebrew form, is a mistranslation.
I'll tell a short story. My friend tried to kill a man. She stabbed him with a knife aiming at his groin, which was the only area she could easily reach, she fully wished him to die. Unfortunately she missed his femoral artery and, whilst he did bleed a lot, he survived. To this day I know she wishes she'd killed him with that one stab.
30 minutes later he and his friend murdered a woman called Kristine Luken and thought they had murdered my friend with 13 machete wounds including a final stab in the chest that missed her heart by less than a centimetre.
My friend tried to kill: these two men murdered. When translating the 10 Commandments of the Hebrew bible, unfortunately, Christianity got it wrong and wrote "Thou Shalt Not Kill" when our bible is very clear about "murder" - a Hebrew word only applicable to humans and which is well defined elsewhere. It's the reason why Judaism doesn't need a complex doctrine of Just War as Christianity has developed because, broadly speaking, we know the difference between murder and killing in war.
To summarise my friend's story: bound, gagged, bleeding she managed to walk out of the forest in an attempt to die where someone would find her body. She found a family having a picnic and was rushed to hospital and saved. Her friend had been murdered.
The two terrorists were caught within days and my friend's stab wound on one of them which left his blood on her sleeve and knife were instrumental in the capture. The wound also slowed the man down and he had to spend a night in the forest instead of returning to the Palestinian Admin area he came from. They are now both in an Israeli prison and their families are being supported financially by foreign aid to the PA.
When asked why they murdered Kristine (who was an American, Christian tourist) and tried to murder my friend (a Jew), the answer they gave was "we wanted to kill Jews" (Arabic doesn't see killing a Jew as murder). The language we use and the words we chose explain a great deal more about our values than most realise.
According to the Talmud, your friend who survived was the only human there. Only Jews are people according to the Talmud. Everyone else involved were merely animals.
How many years have you been studying the Talmud and how is your Hebrew?
The Talmud is an enormous body of work comprising argument and counter argument on ethics and was compiled over centuries. Jews spend years studying and arguing and developing. To pull quotes out of it, as is done all over YouTube, is like pulling random lines from all the OpEds in the New York Times and saying any of them defines the ethics of America. It's the most ridiculous idea imaginable yet forms the basis of an entire cabal of ways to justify Jew hatred.
I shan't show my friend your statement (fortunately she's unlikely to see it here) but if you were to read her book which will be published soon, if you had an ounce of humanity you'd be ashamed to read how she came back from the PTSD of the attack and the almost ruinous survivors' guilt of how she was somehow responsible for the murder of her friend who she actually watched being chopped up before her eyes as she prayed to Jesus to save her.
To imply that any Jew doesn't regard Kristine Luken as a human in every way regardless of her as a Christian, Muslim or anything else, based on one line you heard in a YouTube video is insulting and shallow.
Not an argument.
Talmud Bava Metzia 114b
"Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said: The graves of gentiles do not cause ritual impurity in a dwelling as it says (Ezekiel 34:31) "Now, you [Israel] are My sheep , the sheep of My pasture, you are Man (Adam)…" You [Israel, the subject of the verse] are called Man (Adam) and gentiles are not called Man (Adam)."
Your friend may not hold to the Talmud. I commend her if she does not. I know Baptists that do not handle venomous serpents. I commend them for that as well. I also know Muslims that do not consider Jews less than human, and I commend them for that too.
Nonetheless, there are those amongst each faith that do hold to the most extreme positions it espouses. Since you didn't refute the direct statement in the Talmud that gentiles aren't human, and state that you believe "Arabic doesn't see killing a Jew as murder", I invite you to refute the idea that only Jews are human, and to concede that some Arabs also do not view non-Muslims as nothing more than animals.
For many years I have prayed the Shabbat, and raised my sons to do so as well.
That does not excuse any who view other people as subhuman, nor machinations that seek to do harm to entire nations of them.
Will you state directly that non-Jews are human, and that some Muslims also agree that non-Muslims are human? No misdirection will answer the question, just as it did not before.
Genius, you've found a quote (translated in English). You missed the underlying point of the, very valid, argument I made that the Talmud is not used the way you are using it.
Obviously I regard all human life, regardless of faith, tribe or race as Human. There is nothing in the Talmud that will make me doubt that especially not poorly translated obscure tracts and opinions of long dead Rabbis concerning ritual purity laws. As soon as someone tries to kill me (or expresses a wish to), however, they become a "rodef" and I'll do my best to stop or kill them.
I usually don't do this (reply twice to one comment) but I want to avail you of the chance to claim that you don't dehumanize Muslims. You've directly stated that they don't consider Jews human. I know there are some that do.
I believe you also know this, and saying so is no weakness or disavowal of your people. IMHO, it actually enables you to approach dialogue from a position of strength, since you have demonstrably not demonized those who might oppose you and come from a Muslim perspective.
I think many of the things you are seeking to stop from happening in the UK need to be stopped. I don't think preventing violence in the UK is either a Muslim or a Jewish scheme, but that it is what every patriot and defender of England should undertake to do.
I want to find common ground if it is possible. If you refuse to state that some Muslims are just as able as are you to view you and your friend as human beings whom it would be murder to kill, I fear there is no possible middle ground, for you will have been shown to be unable to meet me there, much less reasonable and peaceful people who happen to be Muslims.
Please do consider the simple affirmation I request of you.
It's not a trick. It's a way to make your message stronger, and better able to gain adherents in a deeply politicized atmosphere. Many people want to find means of dialogue that is the only way towards peace.
If that dialogue is not undertaken by peoples so intertwined and commingled as they are in the UK, the alternative means of resolving disputes to dialogue is likely to come about.
That would be war. If we don't prevent it, more English blood will be shed in Albion.
If I ever seem to be talking about "all Muslims" then I've made an error or given a misleading impression. Muslims are human beings, worthy of respect and sympathy (unless they're committing acts of Jihad!).
I am 100% focused on the Ideology of Islam and Muslims are by far and away the biggest victims and sufferers of this dreadful (but devastatingly powerful) method of organising humans to a common purpose.
My basic issue is, whether individual Muslims know it or not and most do not, that the primary purpose of Islam has, from its later days been to organise the Muslims into a political and military army for the waging of aggressive wars of conquest. It is the highest act of humanity that so many Muslims do not fall lockstep into line with the system most are born into. However, evidence of the power of this system can be seen in the frequent and awful acts committed by people who firmly believe they're acting in accordance with the wishes of their prophet.
Thank you.
Well, I reckon you're halfway there. Do you also acknowledge that there are Muslims that feel the same way you do on this subject?
Your use of emotional rhetoric intertwined with your point is not a good strategy, unless you're trying to appeal to lower IQ individuals.
@valued-customer is not one of those low IQ individuals.
Not that I'd be condescending toward my audience, but yes, I try to write and speak to a mass audience. I'm aiming, deliberately to use persuasion and story telling. It's what I do.
Writing about' jew hating labor' is condescending, so that's a provably untrue statement.
Story telling and persuasion is a valid strategy of communication. Lying during the process is not valid.
It is disingenuous.
For example.... your reference to the attacking of USS the liberty in 1967 as 'shit happens in war' - this is a false Statement.
It was not a' shit happens in war' incident (which happens) - it was a predetermined plan by the authorities to bring the US in the war legitimately.
... the more you say, the more you come across as just a very biased individual, who is willing to lie to spread a narrative to suit an agenda- irrelevant of it's authenticity.
If you don't know the facts , then you need to learn learn your history before saying such one liners that are provably untrue.
It makes you look disingenuous, naive, or stupid.
Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately,
The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities
From the sinking of the Lusitania (to bring the US into the first world war), to the pearl harbor strategy to bring the US into WW2 , it is incumbent to know the fact - to the best of anyone's ability.
(p.s.. your knowledge of the history of Israel, and it's economic structure, up until to present day - is lacking,(judging from your Dankula interview. Your welcome).
You seem to talk a lot of sense - why devalue your own points with BS?
Yeah the thing is...
...for slighty inflamatory headline ...read Hitler-esques /Stalin-esque style headline grabbing sophistry - intentionally used to whip up an a adorning sheep like flock , into a frenzy of righteous retribution against an enemy , yet to be decided , just get that fervor whipped up, first...
These 'slighty inflammatory headlines', are where the internment camps and kulags started.
Using sophistry in any way to highlight anything , only shows a weak position, or disingenuous motives using' any means possible' to achieve an objective.
....Or incredibly stupidity.
I don't think you're stupid.
Neither am I.
...and so having this knowledge .. you then choosing to use this language in your headline..What does this explain about your values?
(...your stories indicate to me what I'm already thinking, and what your values are).
I'm listening the dankula interview now, to form a better understanding of your position.
As you say, the language we use and the words we choose , explain a great deal more about our values than most realise.
Inflammatory statements can be useful to trigger people. Sometimes rash statements that reveal the true sentiments and intentions of folks can be revealed by doing so. It's a risky strategy, and when it fails can make you look a fool.
When it works, though, the clutter is cut through, and the facts of the matter become clear.
Inflammatory statements based in truth are fine. Encouraged, even.
One that are knowingly false , just make you look fake, upon further inspection..
3 years ago on the day Corbyn became leader of the UK Labour party I was on a minor Israeli TV news channel and I pulled up short of calling him a Jew hater (I prefer not to use the term antisemite).
3 years on many think the case is closed on that.
My reasoning for putting out the "Jew hating Labour Party" headline is that the leadership (especially in an institution that has proven itself opposed to individual freedoms) represents the organisation more than the rank and file. As such I'll continue to say it until such time as people who obviously hate Jews having our homeland back cease to hold power in the UK Labour party.
It's everyone's right to speak freely, irrelevant of it's authenticity.
I'm trying to help.
The Jewish peoples never had a homeland ergo, you cannot get it back.
...the return to zion is not a valid argument as it doesn't refer to any specified definitive area.
An idea is a concept. It is not an objective reality.
It was only around 150 years ago the_ reality_ was put forward (herzl and others).
To be then realized through the Balfour treaty/declaration, blah blah..
Just to be clear - for I feel this one is coming( it's happened before)...
I'm not anti -Jewish,
(I've had many great relationships with Israeli's over the years).
I am very pro truth, however.
I am anti authoritarian.