All morality is the product of man's rationality.
>My morality comes from god
Why don't you follow the devil? Why do you follow god? Do you judge him to be good? How could you judge him to be good without morality in the first place? If you can't judge him to be good, why do you follow him?
Accepting god as a moral authority presupposes the existence of morality independently from god.
>Morality needs an objective standard
True, that objective standard is reality. All morality is based on reality.
Will this action lead me to happiness? Right or wrong.
Note that this is not about "maximizing happiness". This is about each individual person making a decision with their rational mind over their best course of action. This is not hedonism. The pursuit of pure pleasure is in fact an irrational choice, an immoral choice. The ultimate human form of hedonism is the homeless addict, doing anything for their next fix.
I do not advocate hedonism.
>Without an arbiter of morality, people will disagree
Do Christian agree on morality right now? I can talk to 2 different people and be told by one that Christians have a divine right to forcibly convert the world, and be told by another that being a Christian means letting the entire third-world swarm into your nation.
All morality is the product of man's rationality
what is happiness?
Contentment, satisfaction, joy. Things of that nature.
That has to be one of the most hideous babies I have ever seen worse than niglets SAD!
What is wrong with you he is very cute!
so pleasure?
op read too much philosophy and it got to his head
retards everywhere
when will the earth be nuked by aliens?
fuck
Pleasure is a fleeting physical sensation.
Now, let me ask you a better question
Where does human rationality comes from?
God says thou shalt not kill
Treat others as you’d want to be treated
Devil says eat children and be gay
Morality is pretty fuckin basic
You’re a joke, show flag
there are intellectual pleasures too
>Where does human rationality comes from?
I don't know. I would guess evolution if I had to.
More like balance, which takes effort.
Happiness is a work product and you are trying to find the easy way out
>You’re a joke, show flag
Ok.
>there are intellectual pleasures too
Nobody blows a drug dealer to get money for the opera. I don't really consider them the same.
You dumb cunt. You can't derive morality from man's rationality. You can derive ethics based upon a moral core that is given by god or the universe.
>You can derive ethics based upon a moral core that is given by god or the universe.
Refute the points I made in my OP regarding objective standards first.
The only true happiness is the love created in reproduction. Any organism’s sole purpose is to reproduce
i love that pic. It's cute
>You can't derive morality from man's rationality
Actually I didn't even say that, I said morality comes from reality.
Dumb cunt.
Right here dumbass
Have sex
That "I don't know" is God, my friend.
Only one species on this planet is rational, and that did not come from a lottery of the nature, universe or whatever random process you might think about. It comes from something higher, above all things created on the universe, that is God.
intellectual pleasures are better because they last longer and don't give you pain later
Why would you be skeptical towards one metaphysical concept only to be turn around and be gullible towards another metaphysical concept?
Amen
>All morality is the product of man's rationality.
Completely untrue. Morality is a result of evolution. Actions that cause harm to your genes will indeed make your genes less likely to survive. Thus, evolution will try to make it so that you won't commit such actions. It will make you consider them evil. Conversely, actions that are beneficial to the survival of your genes will be considered good.
>All morality is based on reality.
It's based on survival. If your morality is detrimental to your genes, your morality is poor and will die with you.
>Why don't you follow the devil? Why do you follow god?
Because godless societies were weeded out by evolution just like poor moralities. Just as we developed altruism and aversion to killing each other, we also evolved to believe in god and to build churches. Since our ancestors survived and even thrived, these things can't have been too bad. You can of course experiment and deviate from their example, but you'll do it at your own peril. Perhaps you'll find a better way. Or more likely you will end up being a dead end in both genes and memes.
>Why don't you follow the devil? Why do you follow god?
Because following good IS following god. It's just semantics. If you said that the devil was good and god was evil, I guess everyone would be 'evil', but it wouldn't make a difference now would it? At the end of the day it's strictly a definitional argument: God is good, and if I get my morality from God, then my morality is good by some sort of transitive property of 'good'.
>Do you judge him to be good? How could you judge him to be good without morality in the first place?
No, you don't need to. How do you have a concept of what 'good' is if there's nothing to judge, or distinguish in the first place. Morality is a construct that is man-made as a framework to help us understand the difference between good and evil. By our very construction, we're flawed, so our attempt to capture morality in a perfect sense will be equally as flawed. There does exist some divine truth, an absolute morality that encompasses everything, but it's beyond our comprehension.
>Any organism’s sole purpose is to reproduce
>What are worker ants
I'll repeat it.
How do you judge god to be good (and thus worth listening to) without a moral standard?
>That "I don't know" is God, my friend.
Do you have any proof of that?
>Only one species on this planet is rational,
That's not really true, Europeans and Japanese are both rational. We also killed off the neanderthals, but they were probably rational.
What if my intellectual pleasure gives me physical pleasure too? Like through masturbation.
Either you’re a white supremacist or have an alien fetish either which way the kid is fugly
>Morality is a result of evolution
If morality is an evolutionary mandate, why aren't all humans moral? Why do so many humans choose evil? You don't see animals harming themselves at the rate humans do.
>It's based on survival.
I don't actually think this is correct, but I'll take your argument to its logical conclusion.
If evolution caused morality, what caused evolution?
>Because following good IS following god. It's just semantics.
How do you know that following god is following good without morality to tell you what is good?
>If you said that the devil was good and god was evil, I guess everyone would be 'evil', but it wouldn't make a difference now would it?
You're confusing the arbitrary assignment of meaning to words to the meaning itself. Why don't you follow the devil?
> At the end of the day it's strictly a definitional argument: God is good, and if I get my morality from God, then my morality is good by some sort of transitive property of 'good'.
Why do you choose to get your morality from god?
then you are a coomer
>If morality is an evolutionary
It is. There is no if.
>why aren't all humans moral?
Why are some born blind and deaf? Why do some animals have many eyes and many legs? It's all because evolution works through survival and random chance. Everything mutates and experiments, and most die. Some survive. That's evolution.
>I don't actually think this is correct,
It is correct.
>what caused evolution?
Logic. Cause and effect. If you have a small hole on the ground and you toss different sizes of pebbles at it, you will eventually observe that the hole contains only small pebbles, even though you threw many different sizes. That's evolution. The size of the hole sets an evolutionary pressure, a niche, and you acted as the random force testing different entities against it. Only the small ones survived the selection.
>but I'll take your argument to its logical conclusion.
Please do.
>Do Christian agree on morality right now?
Of course not, people in general are stupid and intellectually shallow. Consensus is a meaningless measuring stick.
>True, that objective standard is reality. All morality is based on reality.
If you are asking a christian morality is based on god's word and we are all moral failures just doing our best to fuck up less until the times comes.
Perfect morality is not possible for humans, so we confess that we are fucking stupid and useless and attempt our best to be MORE Christlike rather than less christlike.
(moral)Value can be measured in more than TRUE or FALSE.
Value can also be measured in integers. But true accurate moral judgement can only be judged by a divine all knowing creator. Only a god can tell you if you are going to hell for participating in war for instance. There are too many factors for a human mind to comprehend. This is why we profess faith in Jesus, as a way to proclaim there is something greater than us that is the decider.
If you become the SOLE moral arbiter you can justify any terrible action. It's the foundation of Satanism. Do as thou wilt.
>Why are some born blind and deaf?
Why do so many people act immorality? This is not just a defect, those happen at a relatively small rate, this is much more widespread than that.
>Logic. Cause and effect. If you have a small hole on the ground and you toss different sizes of pebbles at it, you will eventually observe that the hole contains only small pebbles, even though you threw many different sizes. That's evolution. The size of the hole sets an evolutionary pressure, a niche, and you acted as the random force testing different entities against it. Only the small ones survived the selection.
Sounds like you are describing reality.
>If you are asking a christian morality is based on god's word
Why follow god's word? Because he is good? How do you know he is good without knowing what good is?
>If you become the SOLE moral arbiter you can justify any terrible action. It's the foundation of Satanism. Do as thou wilt.
Not if reality is the basis for your morality you can't. Will killing babies lead me to happiness? Yes or no. Protip: the answer is "no".
>Why do so many people act immorality?
Because you have your own idea of morality, if you think that people do fail it so often. They don't fail the objective moral tests nearly as often as you think. They might fail your specific morality. In truth, a man is actin against his evolve morality only when he is acting in a way that is detrimental to the survival of his genes.
>Sounds like you are describing reality.
I am describing reality. Evolution is reality. We are results of it.
>Because you have your own idea of morality, if you think that people do fail it so often. They don't fail the objective moral tests nearly as often as you think. They might fail your specific morality. In truth, a man is actin against his evolve morality only when he is acting in a way that is detrimental to the survival of his genes.
They fail morality because they do not optimally pursue happiness. You say that evolutionary morality is based on the propagation of genes, but that is obviously not what people base their lives off of. Unless you are an African that is not your primary concern. Most people have other concerns beyond just reproducing. If they have those concerns, then their morality must reflect that.
>I am describing reality. Evolution is reality. We are results of it.
So you agree that the objective standard of morality is defined by reality then?
If so, how does one determine that standard?
>Why follow god's word?
You'd have to read the good book to understand it for yourself. Read any of Jesus' teachings and come back with something you disagree with and I'll do my best to address it. Christians believe in the new testament. The old testament is just the torah, we aren't jews, we don't want to heard about that historical covenant that no longer applies to us.
>Because he is good? How do you know he is good without knowing what good is?
Logically speaking Christ's teachings are pretty elaborate and cover a wide variety of use case scenarios.
Objectivity requires submission to an objective viewer. No man can view the world objectively. For instance, if I murdered your son as revenge for murdering my whole family, and you witnessed this act and murdered me.
Who is morally in the wrong? Who is punished? You CANT know, and that is the point of god. Somethings you have to let rest in the hands of an infinite all knowing creator. Faith in an objective truth is faith in god. Because without the objective observer there is only local subjectivity and men's madness.
Does that make sense?
>they do not optimally pursue happiness.
Happiness is what you achieve, when you act in a way that helps the propagation of your genes. Your happiness and sadness are also results of evolution.
>but that is obviously not what people base their lives off of.
It is. If your life is not based on that, your genes have a high chance of not surviving. If your genes do not survive, there won't be people like you in the next generation. Thus, there won't be another you to think that propagating genes is unimportant. Instead, that generation will have a higher proportion of people who think that propagating genes is indeed very important.
>Most people have other concerns beyond just reproducing.
Most people think they have other concerns. They don't. For the aforementioned reason.
>So you agree that the objective standard of morality is defined by reality then?
I agree that there is an objective subjective morality. Your morality is not the same as mine. They do align largely, though, depending on how similar you are genetically to me.
>If so, how does one determine that standard?
The definition of this morality is easy. If an action is good for the survival of your genes, it's a good action. Determining the goodness of an action based on this definition is an intractable problem, though. The only one able to answer that question is nature. Basically, if your genes survive, your actions were good enough. However, evolution has armed us with great many heuristics to tackle this problem. If something feels good, it probably is. If something feels bad, it probably is. If something makes you happy, it's probably good. If it makes you sad, it's probably bad. The
prove your morality comes from god or the devil
>Read any of Jesus' teachings and come back with something you disagree with and I'll do my best to address it.
Why would I agree with anything Jesus said? Because it is good? How can I know it is good without already having morality?
>Who is morally in the wrong? Who is punished? You CANT know
Human societies universally establish right and wrong and punishments.
You're telling me you are unable to judging if an action will lead you to happiness? You can't tell if marrying your lover vs killing them is the right course of action?
>prove your morality comes from god or the devil
Green text was not my beliefs, it was preemptive counters to common objections.
>Not if reality is the basis for your morality you can't. Will killing babies lead me to happiness? Yes or no. Protip: the answer is "no".
Some people make a very good living doing just that. Some people literally get their happiness from tearing other people down. It's a mal adaptive behavior that leads to sadness in the long term. But short term happiness for people with fucked up mental circuits.
Happiness is a chemical, and not an ultimate judge of morality. One day, hopefully today, you will encounter the limits of your human logic and turn to god.
We can not know all. So we can not objectively judge. Have humility, know your limits or be crushed by them.
>Some people make a very good living doing just that. Some people literally get their happiness from tearing other people down. It's a mal adaptive behavior that leads to sadness in the long term. But short term happiness for people with fucked up mental circuits.
I think this is literally proving my point?
>Happiness is a chemical, and not an ultimate judge of morality. One day, hopefully today, you will encounter the limits of your human logic and turn to god.
If morality doesn't lead me to happiness, what use is that morality?
what's your point?
that using postmodern doublethink we can call courage stupidity, and nothing in this world is perfect so why care at all?
>Morality needs an objective standard
>True, that objective standard is reality. All morality is based on reality.
No, you degenerate
Morality is what stronger than you will allow you to do
Read Melian Dialogues:
>since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must
There is no objectivity in humankind, no agreed upon "reality"
And the strongest one is always God.
So your sophisms that you think will allow you to touch children won't work here
>Why don't you follow the devil?
Better question is why don't you forgive the devil? Why is he irredeemable: because God says so? Isn't Christianity all about forgiveness? Lucifer was a Seraphim, the closest angels to God and supposedly His most perfect creations; if God is omnipotent, how could He create something that would rebel against Him, unless He deliberately planted a seed of dissent to create a necessary villain? When you really think about it, doesn't Satan's origins say a whole lot more about God than Satan?
>Morality is what stronger than you will allow you to do
>Morality in the soviet union meant turning in your neighbors for wrongthink
>Morality in modern America means letting your kids get their dicks chopped off
>Morality in the medieval period meant giving your crops to the king
I don't think many people would agree with your assessment of morality.
>There is no objectivity in humankind, no agreed upon "reality"
There absolutely is objective reality. Go walk into traffic and tell me how you disagree that you are now smeared across a couple lanes.
>And the strongest one is always God.
Do you have any proof of this claim?
>Why would I agree with anything Jesus said? Because it is good? How can I know it is good without already having morality?
By telling you to read it your self I am telling you to SEARCH for logical inconsistencies. If someone says a bad thing is good, you have the facilities to logically figure it out to the best of a human's abilities. This does not make you truly objective. Just because a child can do addition, does not mean that the child is a mathematician.
>Human societies universally establish right and wrong and punishments.
You are telling me that all laws are just and morally correct and courts are never wrong? Don't you see the limits? They are right in front of you. Address them.
>You're telling me you are unable to judging if an action will lead you to happiness? You can't tell if marrying your lover vs killing them is the right course of action?
You didn't address my complicated murder scenario so I want address yours. Be intellectually honest with yourself and acknowledge your limits or I will terminate this discussion.
>If morality doesn't lead me to happiness, what use is that morality?
Do you know literally nothing about Christianity? The trade off for suffering for your morals in this life is eternity in paradise with god. Long term pay off for temporary sacrifice of your time in the flesh. Doing charity work may not make you happy, but it is good to do. Is it not? Laboring to grow a family, or having patience teaching a child maybe be difficult and frustrating and it may not make you happy, but it is good is it not?
Morality is not about your useless chemicals. It exists outside of them. (according to christians, according to the book.)
Shallow, stupid and pointless. KYS OP.
>If morality doesn't lead me to happiness, what use is that morality?
What use is happiness? If happiness is your objective, you could just pump some heroin in your veins and live a life of chemically induced happiness. You would, of course, quite probably overdose and die, and you almost certainly would not breed. Thus, if your genes compel you to only pursue happiness, your genes will die. Life of that kind will end. Life of other kind would live on. Therefore, when asked what is the purpose of life is, you might be able to answer "pursuit of happiness". Life of your kind would not exist in the next generation, so the next generation would not answer so.
In truth, happiness is not the purpose of life. It's an indicator of good life, not the purpose of it. It's kind of like a dog wagging its tail. You want to make your dog wag its tail, because you want it to be happy (for evolved reasons, actually), but you wouldn't grab your dog's tail and wag it yourself, because it's just an indicator, not the purpose.
>If someone says a bad thing is good, you have the facilities to logically figure it out to the best of a human's abilities
This is exactly my point. Morality exists before you can accept god as a moral authority.
>You are telling me that all laws are just and morally correct and courts are never wrong?
No, but there is a difference between being able to determine right and wrong 100% of the time and being completely unable to, that is my point.
>You didn't address my complicated murder scenario so I want address yours. Be intellectually honest with yourself and acknowledge your limits or
It is impossible to determine right or wrong based on the information you provided, so I can't address it.
>I will terminate this discussion.
I should be so lucky.
>The trade off for suffering for your morals in this life is eternity in paradise with god.
Why does god command us to act in a certain way? It is all arbitrary?
>If happiness is your objective, you could just pump some heroin in your veins and live a life of chemically induced happiness.
Drug addicts are chronically unhappy people. What are you even talking about?
>You would, of course, quite probably overdose and die, and you almost certainly would not breed.
Well, I don't want to die, so I'm definitely not gonna do that.
>Thus, if your genes compel you to only pursue happiness, your genes will die.
Having children doesn't make people happy?
>It's an indicator of good life,
Good? By what standard? How do you determine the good?
>All morality is the product of man's rationality
can you fault Christians for believing that Jesus was the son of God when he provided the dirty Jews a rational guide to moral development?
>This is exactly my point. Morality exists before you can accept god as a moral authority.
Logic exists. You are calling logic based on happiness morality. That simply isn't true. You can suffer for something good. You wont address that. Tell me why.
>No, but there is a difference between being able to determine right and wrong 100% of the time and being completely unable to, that is my point.
There are cases where you CANT. That is what god is for. Acknowledge it. Acknowledge it. Acknowledge it.
>It is impossible to determine right or wrong based on the information you provided, so I can't address it.
That is the point. You are limited. A god. ANY GOD is not. You cant see all. You cant have true perfect objectivity. You are LIMITED. Acknowledge it. Acknowledge it. Acknowledge it.
>I should be so lucky.
God forbid you come to understand your limited comprehension of the world. God forbid you attempt to suffer for the good of others without getting your fucking cummies. Or admit someone else is right or has a deeper understanding than you.
>Good? By what standard? How do you determine the good?
I don't. That's left to god. That's the point. We can only do our best. Because we are limited. Doing your best is better than doing nothing at all. That is our sole calling. To do our best according to the standards laid our in the book.
I don't even care if you believe in god, just understand the CONCEPT and UTILITY of God. It's not that hard to do, even if it doesn't make you happy.
>Why does god command us to act in a certain way?
Other gods had different commandments. They did not survive. Some gods had such commandments that helped the believers survive. Since the believers survived, their god survived. The Christian god has survived exceptionally well. Thus his commandments are probably worth listening and not arbitrary at all.
>Drug addicts are chronically unhappy people. What are you even talking about?
You're missing the point. On purpose, probably. The point is that even if you had a chemical that guaranteed absolute happiness to you, it wouldn't be sensible to take it. Happiness is not the point of being.
>Well, I don't want to die,
Most organisms don't. It'd be very harmful to the survival of their genes.
>Having children doesn't make people happy?
It probably does, actually. It's not necessary, of course. It would certainly be the expectation. However, it all gets a little bit fuzzy after you've already successfully passed on your genes.
>Good? By what standard? How do you determine the good?
I've already defined it a couple of times. Perhaps you should read that one of my messages that you conveniently ignored. I won't bother repeating what I've said. Too often people simply ignore my points, when they can no longer respond to them.
>Logic exists. You are calling logic based on happiness morality. That simply isn't true. You can suffer for something good. You wont address that. Tell me why.
If morality isn't a code of conduct to achieve a specific end, what is it?
>There are cases where you CANT. That is what god is for. Acknowledge it. Acknowledge it. Acknowledge it.
>That is the point. You are limited. A god. ANY GOD is not. You cant see all. You cant have true perfect objectivity. You are LIMITED. Acknowledge it. Acknowledge it. Acknowledge it.
How do you know god is steering you toward good if you are unable to determine the good in these situations?
>I don't. That's left to god. That's the point. We can only do our best. Because we are limited. Doing your best is better than doing nothing at all. That is our sole calling. To do our best according to the standards laid our in the book.
If you have turned off your brain, how do you know god is commanding you to do good? How do you know he is not tricking you into doing evil?
most people dont like thing
most people beat few people who do thing
this is inscripted into culture and passed down the generations
its what your mother told you when you were young and easily influenced
this is also why chinks eat bats and arabs fuck goats
> Morality is x
Yes.
Not because we judge it now, but because some force in the past allowed it, and as of yet no force strong enough oposed it
Soviet Union, if were to last, and European Union now and onto the future will call it duty, and being mindfull of others feelings or some shit - just to eliminate potential threat
obviously
> and tell me how you disagree that you are now smeared..
causality is a word you could use in this sentence, reality is not
> Do you have any proof of this claim?
Faith does not depend on proofs. You may disagree as to the big "why" behind everything. I will oppose that view. I will also oppose the view (to a lesser degree) of different Christian, if we were to set our understandings straight and discussed them for 100h.
Those differences in understanding and perceiving of ideas are the backbone of my previous statement regarding no true objectivity in humankind.
>Other gods had different commandments. They did not survive. Some gods had such commandments that helped the believers survive. Since the believers survived, their god survived. The Christian god has survived exceptionally well. Thus his commandments are probably worth listening and not arbitrary at all.
That does not address my question. You are describing why religions survived. I asked why god commands us to act in a particular way at all. Try again.
>You're missing the point. On purpose, probably. The point is that even if you had a chemical that guaranteed absolute happiness to you, it wouldn't be sensible to take it. Happiness is not the point of being.
That chemical you are talking about doesn't exist. How can I address a fantasy? I could easily say "What if was actually Obama in a costume?", but that's not a good reason to not believe in god.
>It probably does, actually. It's not necessary, of course. It would certainly be the expectation. However, it all gets a little bit fuzzy after you've already successfully passed on your genes.
So then you concede your point that genes compelling you to pursue happiness doesn't necessarily lead to extinction?
>I've already defined it a couple of times. Perhaps you should read that one of my messages that you conveniently ignored. I won't bother repeating what I've said. Too often people simply ignore my points, when they can no longer respond to them.
Lol. You mean your "genes" passed on is good, post? Why is that good? Most people don't follow that, I don't, why should anyone? Just your assertion? You're conflating "evolutionarily successful" with "morally good". You are effectively describing the morality of your genes themselves, but I am more than my genes.
Sounds like you're really hung up on this morality stuff
>If morality isn't a code of conduct to achieve a specific end, what is it?
It is. But your end isn't objective. Acknowledge it. Acknowledge the concept of NOBLE SELF SACRIFICE. You cant you fucking intellectual PUSSY.
>How do you know god is steering you toward good if you are unable to determine the good in these situations?
Faith. That's it. Some things we cant know.
>If you have turned off your brain, how do you know god is commanding you to do good? How do you know he is not tricking you into doing evil?
I don't understand the nature of this question. You really thing your internal logic is the end all of everything huh? God doesn't command me to do anything personally. There is a book. Christians follow the teachings to the best of their personal ability. No one communicates directly with god.
Some people follow the teachings and do immoral things based on their limited understanding or selfish will. God does not "trick" because god does not interact. We are here to take our test and that is all.
You are trying to logically destroy faith. You cant because faith isn't logical. It's an acknowledgement of your human limits and submission to a creator.
That's it. That's the point. I dont know how else to say it to you. You just want to be right but that's not even the point of this discussion.
>most people dont like thing
>most people beat few people who do thing
>this is inscripted into culture and passed down the generations
>its what your mother told you when you were young and easily influenced
>this is also why chinks eat bats and arabs fuck goats
So you've defined morality as "what most people do", have you considered that most people are kind of stupid and unhappy? Is that really the code by which you want to live your life. I don't think people were happy in the soviet union either, why should I adopt their morality?
>causality is a word you could use in this sentence, reality is not
Causality is a property of reality.
>Faith does not depend on proofs.
I am not concerned with faith. In fact, most people aren't either, despite their protestations to the contrary.
>Sounds like you're really hung up on this morality stuff
I think about morality a lot. I want to be happy.
>I think about morality a lot. I want to be happy.
Oh wait I figured out the problem. This guy actually doesn't know the definition of morality. He literally doesn't know what morality is.
I got you buddy, here read this and tell me if it says anything about your happiness.
>That does not address my question.
It does answer it. Try to understand it.
>Try again.
Fuck off.
>That chemical you are talking about doesn't exist.
Pathetic argument.
>So then you concede your point that genes compelling you to pursue happiness doesn't necessarily lead to extinction?
It leads to extinction, if happiness is a more pressing concern than the propagation of genes.
>Lol. You mean your "genes" passed on is good, post?
Fucking hell. I've tried to explain the logic in as simple terms as possible, but you're really god damn obtuse. Morality is an emergent property of survival. I won't bother explaining it any further, since this message really fucking started to irritate me. I'm not against stupidity per se, because practically everyone is stupid in comparison, but this kind of thick-headed arrogance really fucking annoys me. I'm going to sleep. You clearly were not even remotely worthy of my attention.