We Are Straying from the Path that was Laid out Before Us

[Rollo Tomassi]

The pain/pleasure dynamic is the "primary motivator" behind all human behavior.

Agreed, but your presumptions of defining WHAT that pleasure reward is is why you're a moralist:

Our actions are solely based on what can potentially cause us the most pleasure and least pain. For a bodybuilder the pleasure associated with placing in a national contest outweighs the pain of a ten meal a day diet. For the attorney, the pleasure associated with the three letter ESQ outweighs the pain of three gruesome years of law school.

As with most of your responses on this subject, you insistently presume that the more ephemeral, higher-self, seemingly deeper aspects of the reward-for-sacrifice should necessarily always be the pleasure motivator. You cast it in this light because it fits in with your overblown need to give higher meaning to that sacrifice. In Morals Land the body builder is motivated by the pleasure of standing on a stage (amongst others with the same or more dedication as he has) for a fleeting moment to be judged in a contest rooted in convictions. In Animal Land not only does he enjoy the reward of being counted among impressive peers, but he also receives the pleasure of the attention of adoring, physically superior women, he's envied by, or inspiring to, those men of lesser physical status, and the ego-affirming confidence all of this provides him with.

The same comparisons can be made about your attorney. Again you presume that the higher motivation (three small letters next to his name) is 'true pleasure' while ignoring that the status and money associated with that profession far outstripped the pride of having attained that status when he set out to sacrifice what he did to attain it.

This is what makes a moralist; presuming that higher-order, internal rewards are, or should ever be, the ONLY valid pleasure for motivating behavior, while simultaneously downplaying or deliberately ignoring external, physically motivated reward / pleasures as prompting behavior.

That's not to say that higher-order internal rewards are insignificant; it is to say that they are generally a by-product of what the prospects of the external rewards initially prompted a person to do. For instance, a successful surgeon at 45 y.o. may indeed find his personal sacrifice to become one a source of pride, respectability and integrity, however when he entered medical school at 20 the prospect of wealth, status, female attention, and retiring early with a yacht (not to mention repaying the high cost of med school) were far more visceral motivators. Now I'm sure there are various rare examples of idealistic individuals who set out in their ambitions to serve a higher purpose, but even in this case, their initial goal was to pursue a passion, NOT to ultimately be thought of as virtuous. In fact to aspire to would invalidate the sacrifice. Altruism is ALWAYS suspect.

 

[jophil28]

Relax STR8UP - I know you are getting lots of sex from girls so you don't care what other guys think.

OH yes he does. He cares so much what other guys think that he is willing to spend a goodly chunk of his time writing poorly conceived graffiti in thread after thread on this forum in a tiring(for us) attempt to force his views on them, and have them think HIS way.

 

[STR8UP]

This is what makes a moralist; presuming that higher-order, internal rewards are, or should ever be, the ONLY valid pleasure for motivating behavior, while simultaneously downplaying or deliberately ignoring external, physically motivated reward / pleasures as prompting behavior.

That's not to say that higher-order internal rewards are insignificant; it is to say that they are generally a by-product of what the prospects of the external rewards initially prompted a person to do. For instance, a successful surgeon at 45 y.o. may indeed find his personal sacrifice to become one a source of pride, respectability and integrity, however when he entered medical school at 20 the prospect of wealth, status, female attention, and retiring early with a yacht (not to mention repaying the high cost of med school) were far more visceral motivators. Now I'm sure there are various rare examples of idealistic individuals who set out in their ambitions to serve a higher purpose, but even in this case, their initial goal was to pursue a passion, NOT to ultimately be thought of as virtuous. In fact to aspire to would invalidate the sacrifice. Altruism is ALWAYS suspect.

Props for once again being able to dissect this on a deeper level and better express it from a scientific POV.

That's kind of what I've been getting all along, that moralists assign way too much credit to the higher self while they downplay the fact that we are all still animals trying to survive and replicate by the easiest and best means possible.

 

[Unprez]

When you choose your morals to address your own self-limiting beliefs, you are destined for a less than fulfilling life.

If that is so, than why are there so many celebrities on drugs and depressants and y do so many become religious because the 'pimp' lifestyle doesn't bring peace.

 

[ketostix]

Let me take a crack out what it is to be an amoralist:

1. You are an atheist, you believe for a fact there cannot be the entity of God in any form.

2. You believe evolution is a fact. All life originated by happenstance from base molecules and evolved into all the distinct species we have today.

3. There can not be right or wrong. Only evolutionary and biological imperatives. Lower order animal species are the only model for right and wrong because only they are operating purely on evolutionary and biological imperatives.

Well I think one and two are indeterminate and cannot be considered fact, so 3. cannot be just considered fact either. For 1. and 2. I consider several other possibilities. The things is I don't know any human species that actually want to live a reptilian life or several animals speices that do either. It's not exactly the model for highest survival rate in the first place. These low order species have a pretty low survival rate and so produce thousadans of fertilized eggs a year to compensate. the point is even if evolution is the answer that doesn't tell you much about what human species evolved or what their behavior should be like. It doesn't mean reptilian "evolved" behavior takes precedent over all other "evolved" behavior.

DonS you posted a quote that actually demonstrates what I'm talking about:

Identical twins reared apart are far more similar in personality than randomly selected pairs of people. Likewise, identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins. Also, biological siblings are more similar in personality than adoptive siblings. Each observation suggests that personality is heritable

Adoption studies indicate that by adulthood the personalities of adopted siblings are no more similar than random pairs of strangers. This would mean that shared family effects on personality are zero by adulthood.

What this tells you is humans inherit a whole litany of behaviors. Behaviors that are "evolved" and not just created out of thin air. Ignoring that is the revolving theme of some of the amoralist. They have a tendency to accepted indeterminate things as fact and draw simplified conclusions that fit what they want to believe. I know what they'll say in essence, "But the dominate imperative is to fvck...so all women are hors or xyz." No, the imperative to have sex doesn't tell you anything in itself.

 

[Señor Fingers]

@ OP,

Straying is part of the fun. Everybody has to find their own way, even if that means getting lost for a while. There is no perfect path that we were meant to follow. The only failures to be found are in those who either refuse to move an inch, or those who walk in circles believing that they have traveled great distances.

Plus, its liberating when you dont have to live up to anyone's expectations but your own - even though its a given that these expectations matter most from people on forums :crazy:

 

[guru1000]

This is an inane conclusion, try again

You missed the disparaging hyperbole.

In Morals Land the body builder is motivated by the pleasure of standing on a stage (amongst others with the same or more dedication as he has) for a fleeting moment to be judged in a contest rooted in convictions. In Animal Land not only does he enjoy the reward of being counted among impressive peers, but he also receives the pleasure of the attention of adoring, physically superior women, he's envied by, or inspiring to, those men of lesser physical status, and the ego-affirming confidence all of this provides him with.

What is the true motive behind his ambition, the reward of hot women or personal achievement? His motivation in Animal Land would be in attracting the best looking women but in professional competition motives generally remain solely in personal achievement. It is often the men that take bodybuilding to the extent of national competition that lose their physical appeal. Taking it further, to qualify for the nationals one generally takes two grams of testosterone, diuretics and one kit of GH weekly which is counterproductive to passing one's seed on. It is more self damaging than survival of the fittest. Maybe using a bodybuilder wasn't the best example in your counter.

The same comparisons can be made about your attorney. Again you presume that the higher motivation (three small letters next to his name) is 'true pleasure' while ignoring that the status and money associated with that profession far outstripped the pride of having attained that status when he set out to sacrifice what he did to attain it.

Now here is a good counter argument. Is the underlying motivation of an attorney, hot women or a deeply rooted ambition?

The more appropriate question would be how ambitious is the liquid attorney once he is married with children.

Now I'm sure there are various rare examples of idealistic individuals who set out in their ambitions to serve a higher purpose, but even in this case, their initial goal was to pursue a passion, NOT to ultimately be thought of as virtuous.

Thanks for proving my point.

Altruism is ALWAYS suspect.

Pain/pleasure that is not governed by biology is altruistic?

Our actions are based on what is most likely to send our genes into the next generation.

Why do men build empires?

Why do women wear makeup?

The pleasure mechanism is nothing more than the "orgasm". Would you fukk if you didn't come?

This would suggest everyone who is liquid with children no longer have ambition or purpose. Tell that to Warren Buffet or Donald Trump.

"Biology RULES. Any deviation from this will inevitably result in the extinction of the species."

Yet you proclaim marriage is for fools.

Quite a contradiction if biology forces you to have children, isnt it? Tell Mr. Biology you refuse to have children because raising a child in a disfunctional family environment could potentially damage your genetic plan (survival of the fittest).

Your very EXISTENCE is predicated on the fact that your ancestors followed their biological imperatives. Great Grandpappy wasn't analyzing how much pain/pleasure he would derive from fukking Great Grandma. The testosterone flowing through his veins made his d!ck hard, and made your existence possible.

The caveman had the same thought process ten thousand years ago. So much for evolutionary growth.

We are motivated by biology, and influenced by society. Your PRIME motivator is biology. Eat. Sleep. Fukk. Societal influences are good in that they allow us to build a stable, cohesive society, They are bad in that it is easy for the unscrupulous to use them to shame and scare others to carry out agendas that are not in the individual's best interest.

We are primarily motivated by neither. We are individually motivated only by what derives the most pleasure and least potential pain.

 

[john siegal]

Nice idea...but way too IDEALISTIC.

Now put "Ken and Barbie" down and come jump up on daddies lap and listen to the way the world really works.

Morality is a Societal concept.

If the society you live in believes one way, and you another, you will be perceive to be an "Iconoclast."

So let me get this straight, you want to become a monk, and you want everyone else to join in with you?

You want to hold a "cuck" strike and looking for recruits?

LOL...good luck bud.

Try changing the sex drive of Billions of Men around the world, and then we will see where your idea lands.

Wow...what an idea!

 

[Luthor Rex]

1. You are an atheist, you believe for a fact there cannot be the entity of God in any form.

According to the OP, it was my post that inspired him and started this sh!t storm. I'm guessing most people would put me in the "moralist" group... Well I'm an atheist... a "moralist atheist" ?? so I guess that places me in the middle of the two camps here.

2. You believe evolution is a fact. All life originated by happenstance from base molecules and evolved into all the distinct species we have today.

It is a fact and life has no meaning, but don't let that get you down.

3. There can not be right or wrong. Only evolutionary and biological imperatives. Lower order animal species are the only model for right and wrong because only they are operating purely on evolutionary and biological imperatives.

Here is why I guess I'm in the "moralist" camp: I think it can be arguably shown that Nature points to what is right and wrong. But I won't go into the details of all that right now. Too long.


....


It may not be pretty or what we want, but even evolutionary psychologists know that altruism exists.

 

[ketostix]

Luthor Rex I would classify you as an moral objectivist. You are very rare in the atheist and evolutionist camp. I don't believe being atheist or an evolutionist is mutally exclusive from being a "moralist" but most of the time it is. On the flipside you could believe in God and evolution at the same time and not believe in objective morality. One point of mine is I don't believe evolution is an invisible hand controlling human behavior and the determinator of "right/wrong" and that this right is indeterminate and not evident to humans. We have an urge to eat, but what does that tell you about your dietary habits and whether you'll eat garbage constantly and get fat or what?

 

[grinder]

Gentlemen,

I read this forum daily, hoping to come across insightful posts that strike a chord with me, that remind me of the correct path to take in life. These posts are few and far between. The DJ Bible and the Book of Pook tell us which way to go, but we are straying from this path that was laid out before us.

Gentlemen, the morality debate disturbs me. I think it is obvious that we are not born with morals, because if we were, we wouldn't be seeing them change so rapidly. They come to us and become ingrained in us through exposure to good examples and mentors, but this forum has become infiltrated with men who are willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator. Why has this happened? Well, I'll tell you why: because we're using men who have strayed as our examples and mentors. Their mantra is:

"There are no (or almost no) quality women in America, therefore, I will beat them at their own game and pre-emptively strike, doing whatever it takes to reach my objective while minimizing risk to myself."

Is this what we have become?

It's time for real men to stand up for morality and good old-fashioned values. If that means being celibate in protest, so be it. Men are no longer going to have sex with married women, we're no longer going to cheat, and we're not going to deceive.

Be reclusive if necessary, be rocks, be men and be proud of yourselves. There's a certain peace that comes over all of us when we realize our actions do not hurt others. We feel it because we've done right. If we want our women to be moral, we have to set the example; it's our job as men to do so.

It does not matter if the quality woman exists or does not exist. It does not matter what are neighbour does, or our "friends." We know what we have to do, and until we do it, there is no hope for our culture.

Take a stand. For f*ck's sake.

This post was inspired by Luthor Rex's post.

I am not celibate, I do have sex with married women, I do cheat, and I do deceive. I am a human being and I have found all moralist arguments are full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[STR8UP]

At some point, there's going to have to be an agreement to disagree, so we can get back to reporting on gaming and saving AFCs from doom.

There is obviously a fundamental difference of opinion, and it seems to creep up in every other thread.

Problem being, the moralist movement actually serves to keep AFC's right where they are by feeding them with feel good ideas that are detrimental to their own success in the mating game. Good for women and society maybe, not good for men as individuals.

 

[WestCoaster]

I haven't posted in awhile, but this post intrigued me -- mostly for STR8UP's line of a "***** strike", I gotta use that, ha!

I haven't been reading the posts, saw one on how to cheat on a girlfriend. I don't think one posts means we're straying off some morality path.

While I don't advocate cheating (I never have), doing drugs (I haven't done that either), getting drunk all the time (I've had my moments), I also think it's good when one is single to certainly explore the varieties of life. And yes, that would mean perhaps drinking too much (please, don't drive), and dating a lot of women, no matter what your age. (I'd say sleeping with a lot of women, but make sure you take care of yourself regarding birth control and diseases.)

I think the morality post is to get us back in the AFC line and dispute the qualities of DJism. (Please, don't throw that Book of Pook bullsh-t at me, that guy is a long-winded gas bag. Live your own life. Anyone who talks in the third person is full of it.)

These morality posts crop up now and then, we're labeled sinners and so forth, then the religious debate arises -- religion has nothing to do with morality, and the most moral people I've met are either athiests or not very religious.

So called "loose" women I've dated have been the most loyal. The Christians I've dated? The first to cheat.

So please, don't tell us who is and who is not going down the right morality path. If someone wants to explore singlehood to its fullest with all its vices, so be it. Let them live their lives and learn from these experiences. Your moral path might not be the right one to go down.

To quote Woody Allen: "You're not rewarded for being a Boy Scout."

 

[Trader]

I haven't posted in awhile, but this post intrigued me -- mostly for STR8UP's line of a "***** strike", I gotta use that, ha!

I haven't been reading the posts, saw one on how to cheat on a girlfriend. I don't think one posts means we're straying off some morality path.

While I don't advocate cheating (I never have), doing drugs (I haven't done that either), getting drunk all the time (I've had my moments), I also think it's good when one is single to certainly explore the varieties of life. And yes, that would mean perhaps drinking too much (please, don't drive), and dating a lot of women, no matter what your age. (I'd say sleeping with a lot of women, but make sure you take care of yourself regarding birth control and diseases.)

I think the morality post is to get us back in the AFC line and dispute the qualities of DJism. (Please, don't throw that Book of Pook bullsh-t at me, that guy is a long-winded gas bag. Live your own life. Anyone who talks in the third person is full of it.)

These morality posts crop up now and then, we're labeled sinners and so forth, then the religious debate arises -- religion has nothing to do with morality, and the most moral people I've met are either athiests or not very religious.

So called "loose" women I've dated have been the most loyal. The Christians I've dated? The first to cheat.

So please, don't tell us who is and who is not going down the right morality path. If someone wants to explore singlehood to its fullest with all its vices, so be it. Let them live their lives and learn from these experiences. Your moral path might not be the right one to go down.

To quote Woody Allen: "You're not rewarded for being a Boy Scout."

I really could not care less if you are moral or not. You go your own way, you will lay in the bed you make.

But what is amusing is the massive number of threads started by amoral/immoral men who then proceed to whine about the lack of *morality* that women show. That is laughable at best and completely asinine at worst.

Let's make a deal - us moralists will STFU and you amoral/immoral men STFU and stop whining about women, whom you are just as bad as

 

[STR8UP]

WestCoaster popping in to support the cause....nice.

Seems we lost a lot of self aware posters along the way. Guys who understood the true nature of women, or at least had a pretty good idea what makes them tick.

For the record....I am neither moral, amoral, or immoral. I am human.

The moralists would love to separate and compartmentalize everything into palatable, bite size chunks, but it really doesn't work that way. People are fluid and dynamic. They are subject to natural and cultural forces that steer behavior in many different directions depending upon the circumstances at hand.

I find it amusing that the title of this thread is "We Are Straying from the Path that was Laid out Before Us", as if our path in life is to be be "good" (in the eyes of whoever judges "good"). No, our path in life is to survive and thrive. What "path" are we supposed to be following?

Much of this "path" of which you preach is designed to manipulate and control you. Only when you can see through this can you truly be free from the chains that bind you.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

What is the true motive behind his ambition, the reward of hot women or personal achievement? His motivation in Animal Land would be in attracting the best looking women but in professional competition motives generally remain solely in personal achievement. It is often the men that take bodybuilding to the extent of national competition that lose their physical appeal. Taking it further, to qualify for the nationals one generally takes two grams of testosterone, diuretics and one kit of GH weekly which is counterproductive to passing one's seed on. It is more self damaging than survival of the fittest. Maybe using a bodybuilder wasn't the best example in your counter.

True to form, you completely miss the point and offer Sunday school prattling to affirm your POV instead of using critical thinking. In fact your reasoning is so scattered as to be unintelligible. It's not that our body builder even has a consciously recognized Darwinistic goal of "spreading his seed" and then self defeats by juicing on steroids (in fact in that example, doing GH only proves a lack of conviction). Whether the bodybuilder uses GH and ultimately thwarts his genetic imperative is irrelevant when he's not cognizant of some ultimate genetic goal. This is simply you extrapolating your tunnel vision perception of evolutionary imperatives. No one decides to become a bodybuilder, professional or otherwise, by looking in the mirror and saying "ya know, I really need to start working out so I can spread my seed more efficiently." We don't have to because the desire to do so is already innate. In fact, it's a testament to our evolutionary advance that we've evolved to a point where we DON'T have to make conscious effort in considering that degree of minutiae.

In this, and in your very weak counter argument regarding the attorney, you give post-facto reasonings. Let me explain that on an 8th grade reading level for you - post-facto means 'after the fact'. The point I make, which you willfully ignore, is that the initial motivators for aspiring to become a professional bodybuilder or an attorney are visceral and biologically (albeit subconsciously), physically, materially, motivated - and that any conviction or internal rewards like pride, respect, integrity come after the fact; they are only enjoyed or even recognized once the physical prompts have set him on a particular path of ambition. The lopsided absolutist-moralist perspective you espouse is that these after the fact, higher-order convictions and integrity-worthy virtues are the prime motivators for any ambition you deem worthy of aspiring to. It's not a pleasing thought for you that the year 10 bodybuilder who inspires so much respect for his dedication and conviction began his year 1 journey because he wanted to ƒuck hotter women he previously had no access to.

 

[STR8UP]

In this, and in your very weak counter argument regarding the attorney, you give post-facto reasonings. Let me explain that on an 8th grade reading level for you - post-facto means 'after the fact'. The point I make, which you willfully ignore, is that the initial motivators for aspiring to become a professional bodybuilder or an attorney are visceral and biologically (albeit subconsciously), physically, materially, motivated - and that any conviction or internal rewards like pride, respect, integrity come after the fact; they are only enjoyed or even recognized once the physical prompts have set him on a particular path of ambition. The lopsided absolutist-moralist perspective you espouse is that these after the fact, higher-order convictions and integrity-worthy virtues are the prime motivators for any ambition you deem worthy of aspiring to. It's not a pleasing thought for you that the year 10 bodybuilder who inspires so much respect for his dedication and conviction began his year 1 journey because he wanted to ƒuck hotter women he previously had no access to.

This is such a basic, easy to understand concept that I am surprised it even has to be explained.

You can take almost any human behavior and trace it back to the biological need for survival and procreation.

My ambition to start businesses, to become well connected socially, to have nice things....ALL of it is a subconscious response to my drive to fukk the hottest and most women possible.

All of this stuff about "higher self" does NOTHING to promote positive masculinity. If anything, it identifies heavily with femininity.

Where did everything go wrong with women and the mating game? We can blame feminism, but the other side to that coin is that men allowed it to happen (as others have pointed out many times). Thanks for the gift, boomers.

In order to get things back to "normal", we need a lot more "grab yourself by the balls" raw, testosterone fueled energy, and a lot less "higher self" spiritual mumbo jumbo.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Sorry STR8 but I can only half agree with that. I do think that virtue, integrity, respectability, ethics and morality indeed have their very important place and their intrinsic value. We need art, philosophy, music, academia, humanities as much as we need science, engineering and mathematics, those are all foundations of culture. My beef is with putting the cart before the horse - higher order internal rewards follow lower order external needs.

The problem that moral realtivism poses isn't so much a recognizing this primitive base motivation, but an unwillingness to embrace it and live with it and use it. I want to run, I want to ƒuck and I want to fight - I want to feel the blood, testosterone and adrenaline throbbing in my veins, I also want to write a sonata, paint a masterpiece and be a loving father to my daughter . Behaviorism is the antithesis of putting angel's wings on our backs and claiming we've evolved 'above all of that.' I haven't, you haven't and no one has and our behaviors will make hypocrites of us whenever condition and opportunity facilitate it well enough for us. It's not that behaviorism would have us all living like animals in the bush as an ideal state, nor does it deny that people have very enobling qualities; it simply accepts the whole of what prompts us to do what, why & how we do and explores the reasons why in a far more fundamental way than a romanticized moralized humanism. I'm sure this is akin to atheism for people invested into absolute moralism, but nothing could be further from the truth. It's simply a more pragmatic, efficeint and realistic approach for explaining behavior.

 

[ketostix]

I'm starting to lose sight of what the whole debate is about now. Let's see, the biological urge or imperative is to have sex. Maybe we can modify it into, have sex with as many attractive women as you're physically able to. But really what does that tell you? Nothing really besides men have an unlimited appetite for a finite limited resource. The question is at what extreme do you want to compete in, a mostly fair level playing field where ever man has a suitable woman (1956), or at the other extreme where men kill their competition and rape their targets or anything goes, or somewhere in between. It seems to me that if survival is really the dominant force, then man has evolved just as dominate drives that prevent extreme expression of urges that lead to low survival rate.

 

[iqqi]

Let's make a deal - us moralists will STFU and you amoral/immoral men STFU and stop whining about women, whom you are just as bad as.

Great point, one that won't stick.

And I can't rep you again... better go spread some love really quick...