Stoney

Beautiful this speech soaked in ideological racism. Humanity of the first and second class, men and beasts... well done, well done. To respond to you, I would have to write a speech 50 pages long, and I don't feel like it, and besides, I don't think you would even understand. Go back to locking yourself up in seminary, will you.

Obama a socialist? Maybe! But unfortunately, it won't be like that.

Thank goodness, Fenrir. No, it’s that when I read such clear and determined statements, I get chills, especially in front of this horizon of charlatans, priests, and politicians engaged in imposing "one thought" under the pretext of "just morality." I fear anyone who acts based on an ethics they deem "correct" beyond any reasonable criticism, I worry about those who are certain of the truth of subjective and unprovable matters, and above all, I am concerned about those who judge others based on how far they deviate from their personal values.

@Fenrir. No one can objectively decide what is right and what is wrong, but everyone can decide for themselves. If someone is powerful enough, they can impose their worldview on others, who will always look for a way to escape the laws that limit them, because the truth is that no one can prevent individual free thought, even if it is harmful to the rest of the individuals in a society. It’s time to put an end to this and start looking at things for what they are, not for what they should be. Otherwise, one risks arriving at Kant’s alienation, which claims that the family is an innate concept. Perhaps he does not remember or has never wanted to acknowledge his instincts: man is polygamous by nature, and the family as we know it is nothing but a social construct pursued over millennia with every form of condemnation and guilt regarding sexuality. It may be useful for an orderly society, but "useful" does not mean "better," and it does not mean "right." These are profoundly different concepts, and it’s important not to confuse them.

Well, I'm sorry for Plato, but a guy, already in the 5th century BC in China, founded a philosophy that didn't care at all about establishing what was good or bad, but rather illustrated with simple observations that good and bad are just two illusory and useless ways of looking at reality, and moreover, quite misleading. There is only the natural order of things that we have before our eyes, and instead of trying to confine it within such narrow concepts, it would be wise to commit ourselves to understanding it. How? Simple: through observation and understanding of ourselves, refraining from any kind of judgment, after all, we are also part of that order, so why not start with ourselves? No 10 commandments obliging us to do anything: we are free to do as we please, as has always been the case (despite the presence of more or less ruthless laws and tyrants). The guy was named Lao-tzu and his doctrine was Taoism, the only one that hasn’t been lost in platitudes and empty definitions of abstract concepts, that hasn’t spoken of absolute truths or obligations towards some invisible god, but only invited reflection, the doctrine that cannot be explained because every word would be artificial and misleading, since each one can intuit it by themselves. We, on the other hand, are still here pretending to be virtuous, deciding how right this or that is, regulating and planning correct and incorrect behaviors in the name of “one should” and “one ought to”, deciding who should live and who should die, and feeling proud of our behavioral codes. The result of so much enlightenment is right before us every day.

Kant, what does it have to do with anything? You haven't understood at all what I was talking about. Maybe it's better to drop it. Go ahead with your certainties.

"I don't even consider other cultures human." Interesting. Which ones?

"I don't even consider other cultures human." Interesting. Which ones?

Brrrr... I have a chill of cold. You are WAY off track. Besides the fact that the concept of "good" is perhaps the most vague and ambiguous that exists in the world, and everyone has noticed this since the dawn of human civilization, even if we set this detail aside, do you really think that the concept of "good" is inherent in man in the same way as that of family... so the "good" as we understand it is the same that a Chinese, or an Indian, or a Masai understands? Well, if that's the case, I'm sorry to disappoint you, it's nonsense. As far as I know, Eastern culture, for example, thinks very differently from us about good and evil and everything that follows from it. Moreover, when I said obvious, I didn't mean "obviously a positive concept"; I meant obvious in the sense of being overly idealistic. Because maybe I'm the stupid one, but these values don't seem so "obvious" to me. In fact, I suspect they are deeply influenced by culture and tradition, considering there are populations that practice polygamy, polyandry, animal sacrifice and (some) even cannibalism. If you meant "obvious" for yourself, then okay, I agree with you.

Well, then why didn’t you delve deeper into their thinking? I mean, if these are one of the few extreme groups that have something to say, why not talk about it? Instead, the way you presented it makes it seem unimportant, just a random quirk thrown in there, a "surplus" that makes them unusual. But killer riffs, a lethal groove, destructive power are something everyone in this genre has nowadays, and almost always in a sterile and self-referential way. If they use this genre to convey meaningful ideas, I believe that makes a difference. Or not?