ClumsyMonkey.net

xonodoubt69 wrote:

DamascusSteel wrote:HAHAHA!!!

Awwwww.That makes me

Me too .. there's something horribly wrong with finding that funny

sorry. I thought it was funny. then again if I actually saw it happen, or if it happened to me, it wouldn't be funny.

how can you be so sure that it's all realitve - isn't that an absolute?

there are no absolutes! you said so yourself.

mans rights are inalienable. they cannot be taken away or suspended. they can be violated, but that does not change the fact that they exist.

once again : your perception of an action does not change the moral value of the action. there are rights and there are wrongs. if you value man's mind and man's life, then you must admit this.

if you don't, then we can not debate this any longer because i do not argue with the irrational.

according to you, hitler was in the right. if you say he was morally wrong to do what he did, then you are contradicting yourself and voiding your entire argument. which is it?

people like you are dangerous because by refusing to accept reality as an absolute you believe it is ok for you to form your own reality based on your perceptions. this leads to you taking action, ie murder, because in your own reality it's ok. it also leaves you feeling persecuted when people expect you to pay the concequences of your actions.

just based on this argument, a person could say you're more likely then i am to commit murder because you believe given a set of circumstances you would be in the right, whereas I would never ever iniate force against another human being as i know it to be morally unpermisable.

Narbus wrote:Are you honestly so stupid?

nice. did you know that only fucking idiots resort to insulting their opponents in what's supposed to be a conversation? insults are the first crutch of the ignorant, so based on your track record here you are the most ignorant dipshit alive.

narbus wrote:Sit down and I will explain the concept of right and wrong, seeing how it you
have no concept of the issue outside of mindless regurgitation of lines from books that you obviously have decided to just believe blindly, rather than actually think about.

have you ever read the communist manifesto. dipstick? i have, because i used to be a communist. thinking about the works of Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, Rob Moody and Murray Rothbard are what made me into the person i am today. don't assume things when you know nothing. it makes you look dumber then you are.

narbus wrote:Right and wrong are relative. This is not true and false. 2+2 does not equal 56, but killing a man to feed your starving family is not part of some great equation. Right and wrong are based on the values you place on things, and how you act around those values.

no, right and wrong follow along the pathway of the best interests of the survival of a species. humans are born with the instincts to follow the non agression prinicple. there is no such thing as "relative" moral values, idiot.

example. you believe that the terrorist attacks on the united states, which killed about 3000 innocent americans were wrong.

you do not believe that the terrorist attacks - er, sorry, military strikes - on afghanistan, which killed about 3000 innocent afghani people were wrong.

but these are the same thing. murder is a murder. in the eyes of a murderer, what they are doint is not wrong. does that mean we should let them go?

if you really believe that morality is a product of society, then you're saying that if tomorrow, the us voted in a president who declared that anyone who wasn't a straight while male or female should be killed, and the majority of people felt this way, not only would it be ok, but it would be MORALLY RIGHT.

it is you, by your own admission, who cannot think for yourself. if rights and morals are a product of society, then you're just sitting around waiting for the majority to tell you what's right or wrong. congratulations, sheeple. have you any wool?

Narbus wrote:Slavery wasn't wrong, not to the South before the Civil War. They didn't see blacks as actual people, so treating them as slaves wasn't wrong. The North saw it differently, and happened to win the war.

a. the civil war was fought to keep the south from secceding.
b. well. that was rascist. perception of a black person being inferior to a white person doesn't make it so.

Narbus wrote:Hitler knew he was right, so did the Allies, but only one side won the war. Or did you honestly think that every Nazi was sitting around discussing how very, very wrong they were, while continuing down the path they chose?

some of them were. have you ever seen "schindlers list"?

Narbus wrote:No. It was the stupid, outdated idea that there is such a thing as absolute morality that started the Holocaust, and perpetuated it, and is responsible for terrorism, prejudice, racial intolerance, and a slew of other things that you’ve been citing as “wrong.” Their ideas are different from yours, but they believe in them just as strongly, and it blinded them to actual thought just as much as it’s blinded you.

what the hell are you talking about? according to your concept of "relative" morality, hilter was RIGHT. according to mine, hitler was WRONG. just for the record, hitler WAS wrong.

narbus wrote:Any idea or concept has two or more differing sides, there is no one thing that EVERYONE calls wrong. Some guy on the street who kills people for kicks doesn't see it as wrong. But seeing as how it's one versus everyone else, he's wrong only by society’s opinion, not some almighty rule from the sky.

well, then you sit around on your ass and wait for "society" to tell you what to do next. because that's logical, you fucking asshole.

narbus wrote:When you get your head out of your ass and realize that not everyone runs on the same rules you do, maybe you'll understand the world a little better. Or are you so incredibly stupid and arrogant as to believe that the whole world should be run according to only your half-assed, overly liberal ideas, in spite of the fact that they have absolutely no basis in reality?

you ignorant fucking dipshit. do you even know a fucking thing about Ayn Rand? "liberal"? good way to demonstrate that you have absolutely no concept of the subject matter we're "discussing" here.

Narbus wrote:I'll not bother bringing up the fact that I invited you to discuss this in another thread in something at least approaching a reasonable manner, but I do feel it necessary to point out there is nothing even approaching the most basic shreds of logic in your statement. The pathways that your brain must operate upon are so far removed from anything even faintly approaching "intelligence" that I don't even believe your earlier claim that you know how to operate something as basic as a book. How you have managed to operate a computer thus far to spew your insane, deluded ramblings across these forums is beyond me.

horseshit. you have not even attempted to point out a hole in my flawless logic, because THERE ARE NONE. for you, a person who thinks it's "very logical" to say that there is no morality, to tell me i don't understand logic is perposterous.

you honestly don't understand the definition of logic, you have obviously never read a single philosophy book in your life, and here you are, trying to school me on logic? it's hillarious.

if you understood the words "logic" "rationality" and "reason" and had ever bothered to do any research into what you claim you believe, you'd notice that most advocates of your pseduo-philosophy spend all their time trying to disprove or discredit such logical philosophers as aristotle and locke. had you ever read anything from either of these two, you'd understand that what i'm saying is derived from the foundations laid by men like this for the thing we now call "LOGIC".

in fact, A is A is a FUCKING QUOTE from aristotle, who is more or less considered to be the first person to lay down the infrastructure for logical philosophy.

you are ignorant of the things that you are attempting to argue with me about. it is likely that everything you ever learned about philosophy and logic you got from the pages of national review or some other such trash.

i think rush limbaugh is starting. you'd better hurry or you'll miss him.

That gif of that baby being kicked is horrible.

Coming from me, that's saying a lot.

I don't see how she could actually kick a baby and someone tape it?

yeah i mean the pictures is OBVIOUSLY REAL

Didn't say it was real, but I still think it's horrible.

Just watch. This thread is going to burst into a debate over wether or not that picture is disturbing and that people who don't like it have no sense of humour .

I still think it's funny. Just an old lady. Kicking a baby. Well not really a baby. But you get my drift.

It's kinna funny. Not really, but kinna.

and that little kid getting nailed in the face is classic

i was laughing for about a minute when i saw it. not really. but i was laughing.

chris that has to be the longest post in the history of long posts.

YourJesus wrote:how can you be so sure that it's all realitve - isn't that an absolute?

there are no absolutes! you said so yourself.[/b]

There are absolutes because he said there aren't any...which has to be an absloute, so he's wrong? That's a nice working logic

mans rights are inalienable. they cannot be taken away or suspended. they can be violated, but that does not change the fact that they exist.

Who gives man his rights? Man himself, they don't come from the sky, they come from man himself.

once again : your perception of an action does not change the moral value of the action. there are rights and there are wrongs. if you value man's mind and man's life, then you must admit this.

And not everyone does, some people don't place that same value, you are no more right than he is.

according to you, hitler was in the right. if you say he was morally wrong to do what he did, then you are contradicting yourself and voiding your entire argument. which is it?

He's saying there is no set morals for 100% of the population, period. There is no 3rd party arbitrary set of rules and morals, each man makes his own, and society judges right and wrong based on a majority.

people like you are dangerous because by refusing to accept reality as an absolute you believe it is ok for you to form your own reality based on your perceptions. this leads to you taking action, ie murder, because in your own reality it's ok. it also leaves you feeling persecuted when people expect you to pay the concequences of your actions.

People like him, and me, refuse to believe that what we know it right is "wrong" because you say it is. People expect consequences because they believe he was wrong. But as he pointed out earlier, not everyone lives by the same rules.

[b]just based on this argument, a person could say you're more likely then i am to commit murder because you believe given a set of circumstances you would be in the right, whereas I would never ever iniate force against another human being as i know it to be morally unpermisable.

No, what he's saying is someone who does something did so believed they did it because they thought they were right, and any action taken by society was not because they were merely carrying out the requests of some higher power, but of their own moral objections.

xchrisx wrote:
no, right and wrong follow along the pathway of the best interests of the survival of a species. humans are born with the instincts to follow the non agression prinicple. there is no such thing as "relative" moral values, idiot.[/b]

Really? Let's find out

example. you believe that the terrorist attacks on the united states, which killed about 3000 innocent americans were wrong.

you do not believe that the terrorist attacks - er, sorry, military strikes - on afghanistan, which killed about 3000 innocent afghani people were wrong.

but these are the same thing. murder is a murder. in the eyes of a murderer, what they are doint is not wrong. does that mean we should let them go?

You just gave an example of moral relativity. Good work, both sides saw their actions as correct. You cannot tell me one side KNEW they were wrong.

if you really believe that morality is a product of society, then you're saying that if tomorrow, the us voted in a president who declared that anyone who wasn't a straight while male or female should be killed, and the majority of people felt this way, not only would it be ok, but it would be MORALLY RIGHT.

Depends on who you are, if you're one of the people who voted yes, then yes it would be.

it is you, by your own admission, who cannot think for yourself. if rights and morals are a product of society, then you're just sitting around waiting for the majority to tell you what's right or wrong. congratulations, sheeple. have you any wool?

Actually, he said he makes his own choices and the consequences are dealt out by the majority, simple because they have the power to do so.

a. the civil war was fought to keep the south from secceding.
b. well. that was rascist. perception of a black person being inferior to a white person doesn't make it so.

Sure it does, if you're a southern plantation owner. The idea that they were anything less than subhuman didn't even enter their mind. And he didn't say that was why the Civil War was fought

some of them were. have you ever seen "schindlers list"?

So because some Nazis thought it was wrong, the rest did, or should have? Cause there are a few dissenting views here, are you telling me minorities are right? Or people who agree with you are right? I'm confused

what the hell are you talking about? according to your concept of "relative" morality, hilter was RIGHT. according to mine, hitler was WRONG. just for the record, hitler WAS wrong.

Hitler was wrong because we won, not because we had some moral leg up on him. If Hitler had won WW2, guess what? He woulda been right! Isn't that amazing? The ones who win decide who was right and wrong.

well, then you sit around on your ass and wait for "society" to tell you what to do next. because that's logical, you fucking asshole.

No, you make your own decision, you're the one telling people to do what society says, because its the absloute. Right?

horseshit. you have not even attempted to point out a hole in my flawless logic, because THERE ARE NONE. for you, a person who thinks it's "very logical" to say that there is no morality, to tell me i don't understand logic is perposterous.

There, I have. Logical as I can

Emily wrote:I don't see how she could actually kick a baby and someone tape it?

It's fake, you'll notice right after the baby is "kicked" it freezes for a second and the image changes slightly, it's fake

The other one whoever, is probably real, but its not like it's never happened before, being hit with a ball isn't all that traumatic.

yes. i noticed the part with the baby, they probably put the owned in right there so they could change it. i was hit in the head with the basketball. yes, it's not uncommon.

i don't think it's funny at all

It wasn't meant to be extremely hilarious, it was meant to show someone getting "owned"

ya i know but still the old lady is kicking a CHILD!