Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[Alizia Tyler]

Objective morality states that things are right or wrong period, no matter what society or other people feel about it. People who think homosexuality is objectively wrong don't think it's made right because society legalizes it. If that were the case @Alizia Tyler would have to accept that white nationalism is morally wrong and yet she repeats over and over again that even though society finds her arguments dangerous, or evil that they are in fact ethical, that means despite society's moral objections she thinks she's right. If your notion about objective morality is true, that it's decided by consensus then you're saying she's full of shit.

I think you are going to have to allow yourself to do a bit more work here. I fully understand what you are trying to say — yours is a rather common though jejune opinion. You have reduced any moral notion to *what people feel about it* and this fits with your admitted philosophy of ‘hedonism’. You feel a certain way about something, and what you feel — if it is pleasant I gather — is therefore ‘right for you’. It is a truth, for you.

Obviously, this leads to completely subjective morality that is ‘non-objective’.

Yet, oddly, your definition is universal. In this world, in this time, in all times and all worlds and all possible worlds all morality could only be based on that which you base it on: feeling. So you have strangely denied a universal principle (the possibility of perception of *moral absolutes*) while with that oddly active left hand have willed another absolute into existence.

I think this contradiction is pretty certral to your entire mental-intellectual program.

The idea of *moral absolutism* is an idea understood by, and conceived by, a given person who recognizes his or her existence within a shifting, mutable, never-constant world, which is to say our physical-biological world.

In order to make a truth-statement (in accord with Aristotelian axioms) one has to have a position from which one can state a truth. This is *the principle of non-contradiction*. If there is such a thing as a mathematical truth, or a truth about some relationship within the physical world, it must be founded within non-contradiction. So, certain truths, or facts, are seen as absolutely true.

I assume you’d go this far with me.

The idea of anything being absolute operates in your thinking even if you are not aware of it, or cannot acknowledge it. I pointed this out just above. Any truth-statement that you make, according to you, must be and should be (and is) true. But how can you make truth-statements if there is no solidity of any sort?

You deny that such is possible, and yet you depend on your understanding that it is indeed possible and also necessary.

I think objective moral systems are systems of understanding based upon principles — first principles — which are part-and-parcel of complex divinations (if you will permit the word) about the nature of this reality. How people think about this does, indeed, shift and change, no one could deny this.

So, in order to understand your position, and it is crucial to understand your position for a group of reasons, one has to understand and recognize your *first-principles*. Your essential first-principle seems to be that all is made up only of *bits & atoms*. That consciousness is purely a physical phenomenon. That ‘higher levels’ do not exist and that everything — all of life and certainly all of human life — reduce to their elements. And this means, according to you, that everything reduces to subjective sensation. There is no right or wrong, good or bad, and definitely no good and evil, because ultimately it is all just a chaotic play of those *bits & atoms*.

This assertion is of course, when it is examined, totally false! Because you have all sorts of ways to allow to creep in all sorts of different ideas — determining ideas that are metaphysical to a world of pure matter. So, you seem to self-contradict.

But you are not alone. Many people have the view that you speak from. Not because they have worked to have it, but because it has been imposed on them and they do not, or cannot, actually think things through. So they are stuck in a convention.

 

[Master Debator]

I think you are going to have to allow yourself to do a bit more work here. I fully understand what you are trying to say — yours is a rather common though jejune opinion.

My arguments are based on logic and science and can be proven, unlike yours.

You have reduced any moral notion to *what people feel about it* and this fits with your admitted philosophy of ‘hedonism’. You feel a certain way about something, and what you feel — if it is pleasant I gather — is therefore ‘right for you’. It is a truth, for you.

Obviously, this leads to completely subjective morality that is ‘non-objective’.

So far so good...

Yet, oddly, your definition is universal. In this world, in this time, in all times and all worlds and all possible worlds all morality could only be based on that which you base it on: feeling. So you have strangely denied a universal principle (the possibility of perception of *moral absolutes*) while with that oddly active left hand have willed another absolute into existence.

Not at all. As I said my arguments can be proven as they are based in objective fact. Like it is a fact that we all have feelings (except for a small number with physical and mental disabilities that prevent this) and that our feelings are created by our own individual body chemistry. These are facts that you're free to try and dispute if you want. On the other hand we have your argument. That there is some Universal principle that you already handicap by describing as (the possibility of perception of *moral absolutes*). Well is it a possibility or is it a fact? Can you prove your perception is objectively real? Or is your perception just another word to describe your feelings?

I think this contradiction is pretty certral to your entire mental-intellectual program.

I don't think you understand each one of us is responsible for proving the soundness and logic of our own arguments and so far all you're accusing me of is rejecting to believe in something you have yet to prove actually exists.

 

[Master Debator]

The idea of *moral absolutism* is an idea understood by, and conceived by, a given person who recognizes his or her existence within a shifting, mutable, never-constant world, which is to say our physical-biological world.

Ideas aren't objective they're subjective. You have your ideas, I have my ideas others have theirs, that's what makes them subjective.

In order to make a truth-statement (in accord with Aristotelian axioms) one has to have a position from which one can state a truth. This is *the principle of non-contradiction*. If there is such a thing as a mathematical truth, or a truth about some relationship within the physical world, it must be founded within non-contradiction. So, certain truths, or facts, are seen as absolutely true.

And the contradiction to your argument is that everyone has a different ideas about what is morally right and wrong. Some think homosexuality is wrong. Some think sex before marriage is wrong. Some think race mixing is wrong and there are others who think all those things are perfectly fine.

I assume you’d go this far with me.

I'm wondering when we're going to get to the part where you provide evidence of objective morality.

The idea of anything being absolute operates in your thinking even if you are not aware of it, or cannot acknowledge it.

In other words your argument amounts to your wrong because I say your wrong and you just can't see how wrong you are.

I pointed this out just above. Any truth-statement that you make, according to you, must be and should be (and is) true. But how can you make truth-statements if there is no solidity of any sort?

Prove anything I said above is wrong. Let's see it.

I think objective moral systems are systems of understanding based upon principles — first principles — which are part-and-parcel of complex divinations (if you will permit the word) about the nature of this reality. How people think about this does, indeed, shift and change, no one could deny this.

I don't care what you think, I care what you can prove.

So, in order to understand your position, and it is crucial to understand your position for a group of reasons, one has to understand and recognize your *first-principles*. Your essential first-principle seems to be that all is made up only of *bits & atoms*. That consciousness is purely a physical phenomenon. That ‘higher levels’ do not exist and that everything — all of life and certainly all of human life — reduce to their elements. And this means, according to you, that everything reduces to subjective sensation. There is no right or wrong, good or bad, and definitely no good and evil, because ultimately it is all just a chaotic play of those *bits & atoms*.

And this is backed by science.

This assertion is of course, when it is examined, totally false!

So you think atoms don't exist?

Because you have all sorts of ways to allow to creep in all sorts of different ideas — determining ideas that are metaphysical to a world of pure matter. So, you seem to self-contradict.

What are these ways and were is the proof they exist?

But you are not alone. Many people have the view that you speak from. Not because they have worked to have it, but because it has been imposed on them and they do not, or cannot, actually think things through. So they are stuck in a convention.

You did not provide one piece of evidence in that long ass post.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

My arguments are based on logic and science and can be proven, unlike yours.

No sir. They are based in selections of bits of information; reductions of general notions about things which you render absolutes through an act of will; negations by simple insistence and forced assertion.

You pretend (rehearse, enact) that you are performing intellectual science — but you know very little about science and far less about the history of ideas.

Yet no matter how many times this will be said to you it does not matter! Your ideas are your feelings!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

What are these ways and were is the proof they exist?

You need to start reading much much more. You need a ‘master metaphysician’ to be able to recognize the limiting position you are locked in.

But you know, as well as I, that ideas are not needed in your system. What you feel is true — must be true — is true by the strength of your insistence sentiment.

 

[Master Debator]

You need to start reading much much more. You need a ‘master metaphysician’ to be able to recognize the limiting position you are locked in.

But you know, as well as I, that ideas are not needed in your system. What you feel is true — must be true — is true by the strength of your insistence sentiment.

I don't feel feelings are true. Science can detect these, can alter them with drugs. It isn't a reduction to state facts and to ask you for proof of your claims. It's a reduction on your part to suggest proof is out there but for some reason you can't provide it.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I don't feel feelings are true. Science can detect these, can alter them with drugs. It isn't a reduction to state facts and to ask you for proof of your claims. It's a reduction on your part to suggest proof is out there but for some reason you can't provide it.

All your ideas, actions, your will, your stated desires, reduce to sentiments and feelings. According to you!

Science is a term you use to refer to ‘facts’ — information bits. Science offers no interpretation of those facts. It just creates lists.

But in the realm of thought, idea, concept — a dimension that is metaphysical to matter enters in. That this is so and the understanding of this requires more depth study and thought.

Yet you do not and will not investigate further. Why? Because any contrary idea, or challenging idea, would undermine your system — felt to be true and determined to be true by feeling-assertion.

 

[Master Debator]

All your ideas, actions, your will, your stated desires, reduce to sentiments and feelings. According to you!

All my thoughts and actions are a result of biological processes. This isn't just a statement by me its a biological fact. Disagree with them if you want but let's see some proof that this is wrong. Go ahead and make a counter argument.

Science is a term you use to refer to ‘facts’ — information bits. Science offers no interpretation of those facts. It just creates lists.

Because facts are unbiased, unlike your feelings.

But in the realm of thought, idea, concept — a dimension that is metaphysical to matter enters in. That this is so and the understanding of this requires more depth study and thought.

In the realm of your thoughts and ideas maybe. I have different thoughts and ideas than you do. Is this a fact you disagree with? Then go ahead and make another counter argument.

Yet you do not and will not investigate further. Why? Because any contrary idea, or challenging idea, would undermine your system — felt to be true and determined to be true by feeling-assertion.

I'll investigate the accuracy of your proof if you ever decide to present any.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I'll investigate the accuracy of your proof if you ever decide to present any.

Sorry buddy. I make efforts to shine light into your mode of thought but not to convince you. Just to illuminate current modes of thought.

You will not investigate anything! When I have mentioned important sources of information and understanding you have said “Why should I give a sh*t about him?!?”

Your purpose here — in this conversation, on this forum — is only to engage your desire to oppose.

Once one sees that, one recognizes that you can only be talked about, not talked to.

 

[Master Debator]

Sorry buddy. I make efforts to shine light into your mode of thought but not to convince you. Just to illuminate current modes of thought.

You will not investigate anything! When I have mentioned important sources of information and understanding you have said “Why should I give a sh*t about him?!?”

Your purpose here — in this conversation, on this forum — is only to engage your desire to oppose.

Once one sees that, one recognizes that you can only be talked about, not talked to.

Because all you offer as evidence are other people's opinions. Other people's opinions on the belief of moral objectivity aren't proof any more than your opinions are or even my opinions for that matter. Facts are proof. Not opinions.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Facts are proof. Not opinions.

Facts — your term — do not prove anything. They exist as description. They have no interpretive value or power. And they do not self-interpret or self-explain

We have not been dealing in areas where lists of facts have relevance. We have been dealing in other realms that involve themselves with interpretation, as well as meaning, higher and different orders of perception than mere list-creation (assembly of ‘facts’).

Those realms have to do with thought and perception, meaning and understanding.

Your assertion is that all of that is ‘made up’ if it is not a listing of what you call a fact. But lists do nothing. They are inert.

I am aware of your position within nihilism. I focus on pointing this out — describing you. Nihilism results from certain conglomerations or assemblages of ‘facts’ when it is asserted ‘there is no meaning’. The former ‘human world’ falls to pieces, or is etched away, and is replaced by mechanism. (I know you don’t understand the implications here!)

You are committed, in feeling, in desire, to a nihilism position. That does result, even if you can’t grasp why, in an unavoidable determinism in which ‘the human’ (free will, higher thought, meaning and value) are negated as possibilities. They become shadows.

I’m not interested in changing how you see and think (though it is with and not through the eye). I am only interested in explaining you within a larger, historical and social context.

I could suggest sources that challenge your rigid, willed perceptual choices, but you are not interested. For the reasons I describe in detail.

 

[Master Debator]

Facts — your term — do not prove anything. They exist as description. They have no interpretive value or power. And they do not self-interpret or self-explain

What are you talking about? That's what makes them facts. They describe actual things, that actually exist.

We have not been dealing in areas where lists of facts have relevance. We have been dealing in other realms that involve themselves with interpretation, as well as meaning, higher and different orders of perception than mere list-creation (assembly of ‘facts’).

Who's interpretation? Yours? What makes your interpretation right? What's is this higher order perception? Sounds like hocus pocus.

Those realms have to do with thought and perception, meaning and understanding.

Realms aren't responsible for thought and perception, your brain is. That's a biological fact.

Your assertion is that all of that is ‘made up’ if it is not a listing of what you call a fact. But lists do nothing. They are inert.

It's all made up if you can't prove it's existence. It's that simple. The facts of gravity are more than just a list. It's a description of a real physical process. Believe in it or not, if you jump out of a window those lists of rules can tell you what your rate of fall is going to be and what your velocity is going to be when you hit the ground. That's the Powers of facts. You can't even describe what this higher realm is.

I am aware of your position within nihilism. I focus on pointing this out — describing you. Nihilism results from certain conglomerations or assemblages of ‘facts’ when it is asserted ‘there is no meaning’. The former ‘human world’ falls to pieces, or is etched away, and is replaced by mechanism. (I know you don’t understand the implications here!)

I didn't say their was no meaning. I said meaning was subjective. My meaning is going to be different than yours.

You are committed, in feeling, in desire, to a nihilism position. That does result, even if you can’t grasp why, in an unavoidable determinism in which ‘the human’ (free will, higher thought, meaning and value) are negated as possibilities. They become shadows.

Yeah. No they don't. I believe in determinism and free will.

I’m not interested in changing how you see and think (though it is with and not through the eye). I am only interested in explaining you within a larger, historical and social context.

You can't explain anything without facts.

I could suggest sources that challenge your rigid, willed perceptual choices, but you are not interested. For the reasons I describe in detail.

I'm not asking for homework, I'm asking you to prove your claims, which you obviously can't.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

What are you talking about?

Mostly of things you lack preparation to be capable of understanding.

Sorry — homework required in your case. But really for an entire generation (or two).

 

[Master Debator]

Mostly of things you lack preparation to be capable of understanding.

Sorry — homework required in your case. But really for an entire generation (or two).

Personal attacks are no substitute for sound arguments. It's very simple. Your thoughts come from your brain. If you have evidence they come from some other realm, like Asguard or Nifilheim, or Joddenheim, then be my guest. Sure, maybe our thoughts come from Valhalla. Where's your proof though?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You can't explain anything without facts.

Though you have not been able to understand what I am talking about when it comes to thought/consciousness/awareness/idea -- these are still both scientific and philosophical (religious-existential problems) -- I do not say that so-called *scientific facts* are unreal and do not ever mean to deny the relevance of the concrete definitions of biological science, of measurement, and of mathematical relationship.

So let me present an argument which defines race as real, not as false, not as an illusion. I believe that this falls squarely into your preferred camp of, shall I say, absolute incontrovertible fact. (The debate is between two American dissidents who hold very different ideas on the subject).

The E Michael Jones/Jared Taylor debate: Is Race And Important Reality or a Fiction?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I have plenty that white wingers are getting cucked and having their country taken from them. In fact Tucker Carlson goes on his show every night to cry about it. It's not even my theory. White replacement theory like the term "cuck" is a white wing invention. All I'm doing is agreeing with them.

Here is an interesting exposition by Jared Taylor in which he explains the *reality* of what is going on in America. This is, I think, the argument or exposition about which you say "All I am doing is agreeing with them".

What interests me is not so much baiting or challenging people (either White or non-White) to come forward and make some comment about all of this (though I wish it were talked about more directly), but more what would happen, what could happen, if the culture-molding machinery which Taylor talks about were not geared so strongly in that direction?

Who and what stands behind all of this? It is a question I do not have answers for, just questions.

 

[Master Debator]

Though you have not been able to understand what I am talking about

I understand everything you're saying, it's just very little of it makes any logical sense.

when it comes to thought/consciousness/awareness/idea -- these are still both scientific and philosophical (religious-existential problems) --

These aren't problems. You call them problems because you're having difficulty explaining objective moral principles in a way that makes sense in light of the fact that there are many religions with many different moral beliefs. You might be able to claim your moral beliefs are the right ones (everyone does) but you can't prove it.

I do not say that so-called *scientific facts* are unreal and do not ever mean to deny the relevance of the concrete definitions of biological science, of measurement, and of mathematical relationship.

Of course you don't because brains actually exist and they stop having thoughts when they die. It's this other realm who's existence is in question.

So let me present an argument which defines race as real, not as false, not as an illusion. I believe that this falls squarely into your preferred camp of, shall I say, absolute incontrovertible fact. (The debate is between two American dissidents who hold very different ideas on the subject).

The E Michael Jones/Jared Taylor debate: Is Race And Important Reality or a Fiction?

Yeah, I'm not listening to that. Supposedly you did and if you found a convincing argument in there then by all means present it and be prepared to defend it.

 

[Master Debator]

Here is an interesting exposition by Jared Taylor in which he explains the *reality* of what is going on in America. This is, I think, the argument or exposition about which you say "All I am doing is agreeing with them".

What interests me is not so much baiting or challenging people (either White or non-White) to come forward and make some comment about all of this (though I wish it were talked about more directly), but more what would happen, what could happen, if the culture-molding machinery which Taylor talks about were not geared so strongly in that direction?

Who and what stands behind all of this? It is a question I do not have answers for, just questions.

I've never actually seen Jared Taylor before this video. ****ing hilarious. That guy has got serious crazy eyes going. Is this your champion? That sad, scared cuck?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Yeah, I'm not listening to that.

Esteemed Sir, I think you know that I am not writing for you, and in a way not to you. I write in relation to you. You are a useful vehicle because you embody so many different mistakes of perception and understanding.

My hope is simply that other people, who are concerned about what is going on in our present, will read, consider and think about some of the ideas and views that have inspired me. It took me years to dismantle some of the view-structures that I was forced to encounter when I first came into this entire conversation and debate (the positions of the Dissident Right). It is likely the same for others.

Will that happen, broadly, on this particular forum dominated as it is by generally Progressive-Left viewpoint? No, only very limitedly. Most people are afraid to encounter themselves and face reality.

But whether or not anything I say specifically, right now, has effect or not is not even my larger concern. I just want to find ways to clarify my own thinking.

 

[Master Debator]

Esteemed Sir, I think you know that I am not writing for you, and in a way not to you. I write in relation to you. You are a useful vehicle because you embody so many different mistakes of perception and understanding.

My hope is simply that other people, who are concerned about what is going on in our present, will read, consider and think about some of the ideas and views that have inspired me. It took me years to dismantle some of the view-structures that I was forced to encounter when I first came into this entire conversation and debate (the positions of the Dissident Right). It is likely the same for others.

Will that happen, broadly, on this particular forum dominated as it is by generally Progressive-Left viewpoint? No, only very limitedly. Most people are afraid to encounter themselves and face reality.

But whether or not anything I say specifically, right now, has effect or not is not even my larger concern. I just want to find ways to clarify my own thinking.

The type of people who look to two yahoos as authorities on whether blacks and Whites are different races of human beings rather than biologists or geneticists are really no different than the type of people who look to rain shamans for the health of their crops rather than investing in an irrigation system. Science > Voodoo.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

The type of people who look to two yahoos as authorities on whether blacks and Whites are different races of human beings rather than biologists or geneticists are really no different than the type of people who look to rain shamans for the health of their crops rather than investing in an irrigation system. Science > Voodoo.

This is rather funny: the presentation that Taylor offers (in the debate you say you won't listen to) is *fact-based* in exactly the sense that you say things must be facts based!

He describes things concretely, biologically, with specific references an *evidence*.

You want and accept *facts* nor *evidence* when they serve your purposes, and deny them when they don't.

Human, All Too Human.

 

[Master Debator]

This is rather funny: the presentation that Taylor offers (in the debate you say you won't listen to) is *fact-based* in exactly the sense that you say things must be facts based!

He describes things concretely, biologically, with specific references an *evidence*.

You want and accept *facts* nor *evidence* when they serve your purposes, and deny them when they don't.

Human, All Too Human.

I watched the first few minutes of that for shits and giggles. Jared starts off his biologically based argument by holding a photograph of an European standing next to tribal Africans. That's not actual biology there Alizia but I did have picture books being about your level of cognitive ability.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

That's not actual biology there Alizia but I did have picture books being about your level of cognitive ability.

Yes but you'd have to go through the whole presentation. The purpose being, only, to establish that race-difference is real, not an invention. One aspect of verification of that *fact* is in what we clearly see with our two physical eyes. There, you can see *with the eye* and not necessarily *through the eye*!

 

[Master Debator]

Yes but you'd have to go through the whole presentation. The purpose being, only, to establish that race-difference is real, not an invention. One aspect of verification of that *fact* is in what we clearly see with our two physical eyes. There, you can see *with the eye* and not necessarily *through the eye*!

And what makes people with different skin color a different race of people any more than people with different eye colors of hair color? Pictures of people with different features standing beside one another isn't biology. Geneticists and biologists are authorities on biology not white supremacists. Your culture is dying for the same reason any culture dies, you haven't adapted to this world. You're still living in the old one and trying to drag everyone back to a time when we knew less about how the world works than we do now. Only fools will fall for that and the rest will leave you behind.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

And what makes people with different skin color a different race of people any more than people with different eye colors of hair color? Pictures of people with different features standing beside one another isn't biology.

You amaze me. You say *race is a social construct* and is not real. But there are real differences between racial subgroups.

That is really all there is to it: that these differences exist. Thus, race is not a social construct. It is a *fact* (in your precise sense!)

Geneticists and biologists are authorities on biology not white supremacists. Your culture is dying for the same reason any culture dies, you haven't adapted to this world. You're still living in the old one and trying to drag everyone back to a time when we knew less about how the world works than we do now. Only fools will fall for that and the rest will leave you behind.

This is all a different issue.