Stripped

[starvingeyes]

[mosaik]

[Corey]

[emily]

[mosaik]

[Narbus]

[committed]

[sandsleeper]

whoa... i missed the transition form christina aguahahah to baby strangulation.

[NikitaTheIrishesqueSpy]

To clarify the apparent miscommunication of what reality and existence really are:

"Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists posessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If nothing exists, there can be no consciouness: a consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciouness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you posess is not consciousness." -Ayn Rand.

Here, she follows the precept that Aristotle formed thousands of years ago: that A is A. It is still a basic concept today in every form of logic. An apple cannot be an orange, nor anything but what it is - an apple. She also urges us to look at any contradiction that we may find ourselves facing, and check our premises. One thing cannot be one and another at the same time. A hand cannot be a foot at the same time, and a band of a rainbow cannot be blue and red at the same time.Two different things can be two different things, but they cannot be one in the same. Such is her argument of reason. Man has the ability to think. Reason is that faculty that we can choose to exercise, but it must be by choice. One always has the right to choose, however in choosing not to choose, he relinquishes his "self-control" to anyone who wants to take it. These are the people who seek scapegoats, and who refuse responsibility for their actions. And these are the people who expect to be carried through life, blaming others when it drops them. This is a contradiction. If A is the man with a thinking mind, then A cannot also be B: the man with the non-thinking mind. To think is to think, to not think it not to think, but don't expect them to cross over.

I'll end with another quotation:
"These two - reason and freedom - are corollaries, and their relationship is reciprocal: when men are rational, freedom wins; when men are free, reason wins." -Ayn Rand

[Narbus]

[committed]

[Narbus]

[DamascusSteel]

[committed]

[DamascusSteel]

[Brooklin Matt]

Has anyone seen Donnie Darko??

Remember the Love and Hate line..............that reminds me of Chris's arguement how it is summed up into just two blobs. We are simply stating that other cultures have different morals

By strangling the baby take another's rights and void your own........I guess so. if a million other people survive by us doing that, it is totally beside the point?? What if you let the million die? Are you thereby totally moral. At least recognize that there are multiple points of view here. Not just one moral centre.........."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." hehe, I like using Spock quotes.

Is commiting suicide murdering yourself???

If it is, when Spock saved the ship by contaminating himself with lethal radiation, which in turned killed him............but saved the ship and its crew......is that immoral. I guess it would be immoral to kill someone, but it is MORE immoral in my belief to let millions die because one was let survived. Why value that one life more than any others. It just seems like you have placed more value on your own guilt then the actual objectivity that you claim to have. Would you murder yourself to let millions live??

I agree that strangling a dying person without consent is murder........but consented euthanasia is far different. Is it moral to let someone suffer terribly before death. If they want to keep living, by all means. But letting someone who simply cannot bear the pain............??

I know we aren't going to agree on the same moral outlook..........but you are indeed wrong saying there is just one way of morality. The term itself is about assessing value to certain things. Me and Narbus simply wanted you to understand that it is possible to have different moral outlooks, and that outlook of your own may in fact be falliable. If you can't recognize this then you seriously are not being objective, but rather subjective to your own needs and cultural orientation.



Narbus: Do you study Anthropology??

xchrisx: I'm still intersted in your way of thinking......obviously because I can't see how it makes any sense. I would sacrifice myself for others......but you apparently would not. Another life is just a bridge between the two when morality is concerned. I would not like myself for killing another......and indeed, it is something of a moral paradox in that there is no"truly right way".......its about more or less. I give more value to the greater number of people, as much as I hate myself for killing someone, that morality is real for me........therefore that choice whether making me "moral" or "immoral" is irrelevant to the fact that another morality does exist...........and that is as simple as it gets. I'm not sure how to debate any further when it comes down to our moral disagreements.

maybe we should go back to Christina and keep it to that.

[sandsleeper]

wow. there's more thinking in this topic than christina aguhahahah ever did in her entire life.

[Narbus]

[Brooklin Matt]

[Gimme_Shelter]