Posted: 1/17/2003, 3:20 pm
Yah, don't you see the parallels?
Page 10 of 22
Posted: 1/17/2003, 3:21 pm
no
Posted: 1/17/2003, 3:51 pm
carnival_7 wrote:ya i know but still the old lady is kicking a CHILD!
Case in point. Since it's obviously an edited clip, I find the concept funny. Carnival feels that even the suggestion of punting a toddler is appaling.
Who's right? (Hint: Starts with "b" ends with "oth of us."
And I would argue with xchrisx again, but damascus already said eveything I was going to.
The only thing I'll add is that Hitler wasn't a relativist. He believed absolutely that the Jews needed to die. It was an inability to see outside of his moral box that led to the Holocaust, which, by the way, I never said I thought was right. All I said was that Hitler thought he was right. As for the parallels between Hitler's little moral box and xchrisx's, well I'll leave pointing those out as an excercise for the reader.
Posted: 1/17/2003, 6:01 pm
I think what Narbus is saying is that right and wrong is on a personal level, and is culturally bound. He said Hitler believed himself to be right, and we believed him to be wrong. he didn't say he supported Hitler, he was just logically pointing out that morality is a perspective only propogated by the emotions it brings out based on our values. Other cultures believe killing their young is okay. We do not....who's right?? WEll both of us are, and boths of us aren't. AS long as you can take on the perspective of each, its right, and vice versa, making it wrong.
Survival does base our laws or right and wrong. The US believed that not bombing Afghanistan was in the best interest of the nation so that no more Americans would get blown up, but Osama probably thinks we should all die because our existence is in insult to his God.
Not really sure I am making a point here....my brain is uhhhh, (matt slams his head against keyboard----dead)
Survival does base our laws or right and wrong. The US believed that not bombing Afghanistan was in the best interest of the nation so that no more Americans would get blown up, but Osama probably thinks we should all die because our existence is in insult to his God.
Not really sure I am making a point here....my brain is uhhhh, (matt slams his head against keyboard----dead)
Posted: 1/17/2003, 9:18 pm
i know that the old lady really isn't kicking the child but i still don't find it funny... 
Posted: 1/17/2003, 9:29 pm
i found it funny because i thought she really was kicking a child.
Posted: 1/17/2003, 11:31 pm
Matt wrote:I think what Narbus is saying is that right and wrong is on a personal level, and is culturally bound. He said Hitler believed himself to be right, and we believed him to be wrong. he didn't say he supported Hitler, he was just logically pointing out that morality is a perspective only propogated by the emotions it brings out based on our values. Other cultures believe killing their young is okay. We do not....who's right?? WEll both of us are, and boths of us aren't. AS long as you can take on the perspective of each, its right, and vice versa, making it wrong.
Survival does base our laws or right and wrong. The US believed that not bombing Afghanistan was in the best interest of the nation so that no more Americans would get blown up, but Osama probably thinks we should all die because our existence is in insult to his God.
Not really sure I am making a point here....my brain is uhhhh, (matt slams his head against keyboard----dead)
Very nicely put. I applaud.
Allow me to elaborate, just a bit.
The problem with inalienable rights is the fact that, by thier nature, they imply some power greater than us handed them down. Same for any kind of absolute morality. Which was a large part of the "why" behind the Holocaust.
If Hitler believed (as I think he did) so deeply that the Jews were the cause of great evils in the world, then it transcended something as banal as his "opinion." It became dogma to him. Something handed down from messengers on high. And you can't argue with divinity.
Had it just been an opinion, and he was broad minded enough to see that there were many different ways of looking at the picture, than maybe he wouldn've come to the conclusion that killing a lot of people wasn't so great an idea, and it would likely get him exploded, rather messily.
So what we need to realize is where our rights come from. They come from us. We, as a society, decide what is important to us and act on that. The notion that we decide is key. Because people make mistakes, so it's far easier to change what needs to be changed in order for that society to progress.
For example, look at the KKK. They all claim to be born-again Christians, charged by God to preserve the itegrity of the white race. Our society, however, puts more worth on equality and tolerance. So the KKK is stuck in the same rut they've been in since their inception. Had they felt their ideals were the product of their own minds, perhaps they'd have been able to acknowledge the great gap between what they preach and what the bulk of society is saying, and become more productive members of this society. But since it's divine, it's ineffable. They're stuck.
Carnival: You don't like the gif. That's fine. I'm not saying you have to like it, or even approve. This society has put personal freedom on the forefront, however, so Damascus has the personal freedom to post dark humor like that (since no one actually got hurt. Assualt is, of course, different). And you have the personal freedom to not like it. It's how it's supposed to work.
Posted: 1/18/2003, 12:47 pm
DamascusSteel wrote:xchrisx wrote: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.
your right, i can't. furthermore, i'm not aruing whehter or not either side KNEW they were wrong, i am arguing that both of them ARE wrong.
your argument, your entire argument, is based on the following:
i. a man murders someone
ii. the man believes it to be right
iii. therefore, morality is relative.
i'm afraid it doesn't work that way. the KKK thinks that black people are inferior to white people, they BELIEVE this. does this mean that it is true, at least to the KKK? just so we're clear, i'm not asking if the KKK believes that it is true, or if it's "true to them", i mean is it true? are members of the KKK really superior to black people?
objectively, the answer is no. their beliefs may be relative, but they are still incorrect.
furthermore, there is no objective difference between the terrorist attacks on the US and their subsequent response. innocent people, thousands of them, lost their lives in both actions. how, therefore, can the killing of innocent people in one country be right, and the killing of innocent people in another be wrong?Depends on who you are, if you're one of the people who voted yes, then yes it would be.
no, it wouldn't be right. you would BELIEVE that it is right, but it would still be wrong.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
are blacks inferior? are they subhuman?
your answer is going to be "depends on who you are".
ok, i'll bite. let's assume that you are a southern slave owner.
so now you're going to say "in that case, yes. southern slave owners believed that blacks were subhuman"
but i'm not asking if they BELIEVED that, i'm asking if it is TRUE. so, tell me, are blacks inferior to southern slave owners, or was the belief of the southern slave owners 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.
so you're saying that if hitler had won the war, he would've been morally in the right? that if hitler had won, the morally correct thing to do would be kill jews?
so if hitler rules the world today, would you be pushing jews into the incinerator? after all, according to you it's the right thing to do. and why would you do this? because society told you to.
or, alternately, you could dissent against the majority and try to save the jews. but why would you do this? would that be your natural human instinct kicking in?No, you make your own decision, you're the one telling people to do what society says, because its the absloute. Right?
no, i'm not. in fact, i never said anything even remotely resembling that. society does 1000 things a day that are morally impermissible.There, I have. Logical as I can
no, you haven't. you haven't challenged my argument. all you've said is that certain people BELIEVE their actions to be right.
what i want to know is this: if morality is really relative, then not only does a murder BELIEVE that he is right, [ ie, murder is right TO HIM ] but he IS right. so, tell me
do you believe murder is right?
Posted: 1/18/2003, 3:03 pm
xchrisx wrote:blah blah missing the point blah blah stupid personal accusations with jack shit to back them up blah blah
Are you actively trying to miss the point here?
The point is that there are no rights that are inherent simply because we happend to be born human. None.
All rights that we do have are given to us by us. We are the ones who determine what is right, and what isn't. This is an important lesson.
As a society, we feel that human life is important. So we decide that we have the right to not be killed, and we do not have the right to murder. WE decided this. It wasn't handed down from on high. Society came to a consensus, that if you want to be part of this society, no killing. If you do kill, then society will punish you. If you don't like it, then go find another society.
Society has laid down the laws by which you must live if you want to be part of this society. Don't want to be part of society? There are two ways out:
1. Just leave. Go find another society.
2. Hang around, and be imprisoned (in the case of killing) or generally mocked and ignored (as in the case of the KKK).
I never said there was no morality. What I DID say was that we define that morality by placing different values on different concepts, and it's only through actual discussion of these concepts and the value that we put on them that we can decide what is truly best for us. Just saying that "well, this is always wrong always," blinds you to all kinds of avenues of possible truth.
Case in point: The "slut" debate that featured so prominently in this thread. There are people who put greater value on avoiding the spread of STD's and monogamous relationships than they do on having a lot of sex. There are people who put the greater value on the freedom to be sexual beings than they do on "outdated" views of sexuality. Either side saying "God says in the bible that premarital sex is evil, so I cannot be wrong" or "we have the inherent rights to freedom of our bodies, so I cannot be wrong!" totally shuts down the conversation and we get absolutly nowhere.
This is the lesson: There are no rights but those we give ourselves.
Posted: 1/19/2003, 12:48 am
no, you are wrong.
society [ read: the majority ] does not define right and wrong. society defines what they believe to be right and wrong.
point in case: southern america prior to the civil war believed slavery was right. therefore, society made up a bunch of laws permitting it.
society was wrong.
so your argument is that "society" makes morality, so in a society where murder was permitted, murder would be right "in that society"
but do YOU think murder is right? why?
my philosophy is called objectivism. my morality stems from an objective observation of the real world around me. i do not concern myself with petty pondering of useless things or respecting the opinions and beliefs of others. i only look at what is real, that is, what can be seen and heard and felt etc. and what can be PROVED.
if a murder, that is, the unprovoked killing of an innocent person, is wrong in one society, then IT MUST be wrong in all others, elsewise there is no morality. if your morals are fluid then you cannot say if something is EVER right or wrong, only that it "depends".
society [ read: the majority ] does not define right and wrong. society defines what they believe to be right and wrong.
point in case: southern america prior to the civil war believed slavery was right. therefore, society made up a bunch of laws permitting it.
society was wrong.
so your argument is that "society" makes morality, so in a society where murder was permitted, murder would be right "in that society"
but do YOU think murder is right? why?
my philosophy is called objectivism. my morality stems from an objective observation of the real world around me. i do not concern myself with petty pondering of useless things or respecting the opinions and beliefs of others. i only look at what is real, that is, what can be seen and heard and felt etc. and what can be PROVED.
if a murder, that is, the unprovoked killing of an innocent person, is wrong in one society, then IT MUST be wrong in all others, elsewise there is no morality. if your morals are fluid then you cannot say if something is EVER right or wrong, only that it "depends".
Posted: 1/19/2003, 1:27 am
xchrisx wrote:no, you are wrong.
society [ read: the majority ] does not define right and wrong. society defines what they believe to be right and wrong.
point in case: southern america prior to the civil war believed slavery was right. therefore, society made up a bunch of laws permitting it.
society was wrong.
Not to the people in that society. And since they are the ones whose lives are goverened by the way they live, they are the only ones whose opinion should count to you. Did you not say earlier, "no, you don't have the right to insult anybody on any descision they may make which does not directly harm you."
so your argument is that "society" makes morality, so in a society where murder was permitted, murder would be right "in that society"
but do YOU think murder is right? why?
Why do you care so much?
my philosophy is called objectivism. my morality stems from an objective observation of the real world around me. i do not concern myself with petty pondering of useless things or respecting the opinions and beliefs of others. i only look at what is real, that is, what can be seen and heard and felt etc. and what can be PROVED.
Hm. For someone how doesn't ponder petty issues, you seem to be getting rather worked up over some of those issues in this thread.
PS: If you take nothing else away from this thread, it should be how hard it is to "prove" some of what you're preaching.
if a murder, that is, the unprovoked killing of an innocent person, is wrong in one society, then IT MUST be wrong in all others, elsewise there is no morality. if your morals are fluid then you cannot say if something is EVER right or wrong, only that it "depends".
No, there'd still be morality, just not the same morality that you subscribe to.
Please. PLEASE. PLEASE learn to read. I said, "I never said there was no morality. What I DID say was that we define that morality by placing different values on different concepts, and it's only through actual discussion of these concepts and the value that we put on them that we can decide what is truly best for us. Just saying that "well, this is always wrong always," blinds you to all kinds of avenues of possible truth."
There are morals. They can be strong. Particularly after discussion as to why we hold them. We can label things as "right" or "wrong," but we shouldn't do it just because we think some greater power "imbued" us with rights because we came down from the trees and started farming. We should do it because we feel that the things we define as right or wrong have some value that make them right or wrong.
Posted: 1/19/2003, 2:06 am
xchrisx wrote:
Well, there is no universal morality. Simply proven that if everyone thought murder was wrong, it wouldn't occur. I'm sure some Palestinians feel that blowing up a lot of Isrealies is a good thing......murder.....nope. And I think our morals are fluid.....they have the ability to adapt and change to the circumstance in which the situation unfolds.......not by making blind statements like "IT MUST be wrong in all others"
xchrisx wrote:
Glad to see you are admitting your own ignorance in doing it. Prove to me that morality is not a function of perspective usually formulated through cultural significance and experience. You sound like its just inherent in all humans??
xChrisx wrote:
Murder is wrong.......and of course right. Normally I would just say wrong because generally someone being killed on a subway who has three kids by a raving postal worker generally upsets me and makes me think "why in the fuck did he do that?" It just easy to want balance and order.......to have a dependable existence. Murder is right to me too though. In 18th century South America natives would kill their young because they could not carry too many young ones or be shot by hunters or taken to be slaves. It was murder in that they never gave the child a chance. But it was for a good reason. (I got that from a movie called THE MISSION -1986)
This is the last time I argue this particular point.
I would like another statement from you regarding objectivism. i know that's something from Ayn Rand, but could you enlighten me a bit. I want to know what you are trying to get at, and how your application of it seems to differ from that of mine and Narbus. I always find myself agreeing with his points more because they take into account other people's perspectives despite our own personal objections. We just seem to be trying to express that other people can have valid ways for doing things based on their culture, and that our culture, though in conflict with it, must at least attempt to understand its reasoning instead of just assessing it as wrong. I hope I said that right.....I'm really getting dopey. laters debaters.
if a murder, that is, the unprovoked killing of an innocent person, is wrong in one society, then IT MUST be wrong in all others, elsewise there is no morality. if your morals are fluid then you cannot say if something is EVER right or wrong, only that it "depends".
Well, there is no universal morality. Simply proven that if everyone thought murder was wrong, it wouldn't occur. I'm sure some Palestinians feel that blowing up a lot of Isrealies is a good thing......murder.....nope. And I think our morals are fluid.....they have the ability to adapt and change to the circumstance in which the situation unfolds.......not by making blind statements like "IT MUST be wrong in all others"
xchrisx wrote:
i do not concern myself with petty pondering of useless things or respecting the opinions and beliefs of others. i only look at what is real, that is, what can be seen and heard and felt etc. and what can be PROVED.
Glad to see you are admitting your own ignorance in doing it. Prove to me that morality is not a function of perspective usually formulated through cultural significance and experience. You sound like its just inherent in all humans??
xChrisx wrote:
but do YOU think murder is right? why?
Murder is wrong.......and of course right. Normally I would just say wrong because generally someone being killed on a subway who has three kids by a raving postal worker generally upsets me and makes me think "why in the fuck did he do that?" It just easy to want balance and order.......to have a dependable existence. Murder is right to me too though. In 18th century South America natives would kill their young because they could not carry too many young ones or be shot by hunters or taken to be slaves. It was murder in that they never gave the child a chance. But it was for a good reason. (I got that from a movie called THE MISSION -1986)
This is the last time I argue this particular point.
I would like another statement from you regarding objectivism. i know that's something from Ayn Rand, but could you enlighten me a bit. I want to know what you are trying to get at, and how your application of it seems to differ from that of mine and Narbus. I always find myself agreeing with his points more because they take into account other people's perspectives despite our own personal objections. We just seem to be trying to express that other people can have valid ways for doing things based on their culture, and that our culture, though in conflict with it, must at least attempt to understand its reasoning instead of just assessing it as wrong. I hope I said that right.....I'm really getting dopey. laters debaters.
Posted: 1/19/2003, 2:13 am
I just read Narbus's post and agree with it entirely. WE covered the same material in some points. Apologies for any redundancies as I wasn't able to read his post before making my own.
Narbus, I'm getting tired of being your sidekick......
But that's okay, because you seem to be "on the ball" with all of your arguements.
Narbus, I'm getting tired of being your sidekick......
But that's okay, because you seem to be "on the ball" with all of your arguements.Posted: 1/19/2003, 5:42 am
Matt:
if i kill you because i can't afford to feed you, is that right?
it's morally permisable now?
man am i glad YOU don't make the laws, or theft and murder would be rampant! think of all the poor/homeless who'd be robbing and killing and using the "good reason" clause to vinidcate what they'd done!
murder cannot be justified by a rational mind. ever. by trying to justify it, you must step outside the lines of rational thought, and once you do that, all discussion/debate breaks down.
One last thing though: those natives who killed thier young may have had (in your eyes) a good reason to murder, but does that make what they did right?
if i kill you because i can't afford to feed you, is that right?
it's morally permisable now?
man am i glad YOU don't make the laws, or theft and murder would be rampant! think of all the poor/homeless who'd be robbing and killing and using the "good reason" clause to vinidcate what they'd done!
murder cannot be justified by a rational mind. ever. by trying to justify it, you must step outside the lines of rational thought, and once you do that, all discussion/debate breaks down.
One last thing though: those natives who killed thier young may have had (in your eyes) a good reason to murder, but does that make what they did right?
Posted: 1/19/2003, 9:36 am
YourJesus wrote:Matt:
if i kill you because i can't afford to feed you, is that right?
it's morally permisable now?
man am i glad YOU don't make the laws, or theft and murder would be rampant! think of all the poor/homeless who'd be robbing and killing and using the "good reason" clause to vinidcate what they'd done!
Oh, for the love of fuck.
Narbus, several fucking times wrote:I never said there was no morality. What I DID say was that we define that morality by placing different values on different concepts, and it's only through actual discussion of these concepts and the value that we put on them that we can decide what is truly best for us. Just saying that "well, this is always wrong always," blinds you to all kinds of avenues of possible truth.
So what we need to realize is where our rights come from. They come from us. We, as a society, decide what is important to us and act on that. The notion that we decide is key. Because people make mistakes, so it's far easier to change what needs to be changed in order for that society to progress.
YourJesus wrote:murder cannot be justified by a rational mind. ever. by trying to justify it, you must step outside the lines of rational thought, and once you do that, all discussion/debate breaks down.
No, by making blanket statements such as this, you step outside the lines of rational thought, and once you do that, all discussion/debate breaks down.
Your "rational" mind puts value on individual life. The people in that South American village put more value on their race surviving.
Are you saying that those people should have just let their children slowly, painfully starve to death, or forced into a very brief, painful life of slavery?
Matt: I think we need a bat-signal. And the car. Oh yeah.
Posted: 1/19/2003, 10:31 am
narbus, you've got an awfully big mouth for somebody who is clearly dodging the issue.
as i have pointed out 12-15 times already, all you are arguing is that different people believe different things to be right.
thanks, captain obvious.
of course different people believe different things are right and wrong. this is not exactly rocket science.
however, you go on further to say that because they believe it, and because there are alot of them, then it becomes right. this is not correct.
morality is like math. no matter how many people team up and declare 2+2 = 5, the fact remains that it is 4.
no majority can rightfully vote away the rights of other people, like the nazi's and southern slave owners did. just because they believed it was right did not make it right. just because the nazi's, and there were alot of them, believed hitler was right and that jews were inferior people deserving of death did not make it true.
you have avoided answering several questions here, including my request to find out where you stand on the right/wrong issue of murder, and my request to find out whether or not you believed black people to be inferior to the slave owners of the deep south.
do you
1. think murder is right or wrong?
2. think jews deserved death in nazi germany?
3. think black people are inferior to white slave owners?
as i have pointed out 12-15 times already, all you are arguing is that different people believe different things to be right.
thanks, captain obvious.
of course different people believe different things are right and wrong. this is not exactly rocket science.
however, you go on further to say that because they believe it, and because there are alot of them, then it becomes right. this is not correct.
morality is like math. no matter how many people team up and declare 2+2 = 5, the fact remains that it is 4.
no majority can rightfully vote away the rights of other people, like the nazi's and southern slave owners did. just because they believed it was right did not make it right. just because the nazi's, and there were alot of them, believed hitler was right and that jews were inferior people deserving of death did not make it true.
you have avoided answering several questions here, including my request to find out where you stand on the right/wrong issue of murder, and my request to find out whether or not you believed black people to be inferior to the slave owners of the deep south.
do you
1. think murder is right or wrong?
2. think jews deserved death in nazi germany?
3. think black people are inferior to white slave owners?
Posted: 1/19/2003, 4:36 pm
xchrisx wrote:narbus, you've got an awfully big mouth for somebody who is clearly dodging the issue.
as i have pointed out 12-15 times already, all you are arguing is that different people believe different things to be right.
thanks, captain obvious.
Considering earlier you made several statements to the effect "well, if everything was different, everything would be different," This is quite the remark.
xchrisx wrote:of course different people believe different things are right and wrong. this is not exactly rocket science.
however, you go on further to say that because they believe it, and because there are alot of them, then it becomes right. this is not correct.
No. What I said is that it is right to them. Those are two very important words you left out there.
xchrisx wrote:morality is like math. no matter how many people team up and declare 2+2 = 5, the fact remains that it is 4.
If you are correct, and morality is math, than it isn't basic addition. It's advaced calculus and theoretical algebra. It contains factors and variables that you, being from a certain society and culture, and therefore having a certain upbringing, wouldn't even think to include in the formula, but are essessential to other people.
Take the South Americans, again. They have decided that a quick death is preferable to a short, painful life in slavery, hunger, or at the violent end of a gun. Can you argue they are wrong?
xchrisx wrote:no majority can rightfully vote away the rights of other people, like the nazi's and southern slave owners did. just because they believed it was right did not make it right. just because the nazi's, and there were alot of them, believed hitler was right and that jews were inferior people deserving of death did not make it true.
Did not make it right or true to you. Let's take this out to an extreme. If everyone in the world felt that Jews were the cause of evils, than how would it be wrong? Who would make it wrong? Everyone thinks they deserve to die. EVERYONE. Is there some sacred place outside of comprehension where the knowledge that it's wrong would go and live?
xchrisx wrote:you have avoided answering several questions here, including my request to find out where you stand on the right/wrong issue of murder, and my request to find out whether or not you believed black people to be inferior to the slave owners of the deep south.
do you
1. think murder is right or wrong?
2. think jews deserved death in nazi germany?
3. think black people are inferior to white slave owners?
First, you never answered my question concerning why you're so hard up to know my views on these subjects. So don't get all "you're evading the question" with me, Mr. Evader McEvaderson.
Second:
Wrong, no, and no (yes, I realize these are a type of blanket statement, and if anyone really feels like trying to argue semantics, then please just do it by yourself).
BUT I believe these things to be wrong not because of some inherent value in humanity, rather I consider them wrong because I, personally, put value on human life and freedom.
This is the important distinction I've been trying to get across.
I've leafed through a bit on Rand. From what I gathered, Objectivism is assigning morality through taking an outsider's perspective to the morals, and weighing them thusly. If this is wrong, let me know now. If not, I'll let you know why I disagree with it.
And near as I can tell, the only real difference between us right now is that you assume the rights to life and property are inherent in all humans. I don't. Is this right?
Posted: 1/19/2003, 6:13 pm
You keep missing the point my friend. Those questions you asked are obviously ones that in our society are quite easy to anwser based on the way we live and what we expect from life. We don't disagree with you because we are as you expected human beings who have a conscience and who place moral value on life. The answer is staring you right in the face. WE argued that things are different in other societies and that your moral code does not work there. Its like translating words into different languages...its just doesn't work right.
There are some morals that I would hope to be universal, but its simply not so........and when we get out heads out of that Western box we live in, we might realize that. Our arguements have been not to convince you that everything is right just because it is based on someone's own perspective. That way any murderer could have justification under that mistaken logic........it was just to say that there is more than just our viewpoint when looking at something much more complicated then simple "right" and "wrong". THere are so many factors that if one culture values water more than human life, it gives them the right to kill for that water, because it means their survival. In our society that arguement is garbage because you can just go on welfare, or beg, or get a job, or even die..........and then it comes down to right and wrong....after we understand its context. Your objectivism doesn't seem to account for that.
I hope you can see past the obvious morals in which you are citing......you don't seem to follow me at all with your statement about me making laws. It did make me laugh, but you totally missed the point. I can make laws that are distinctive to our culture, of course by hearing all the arguements and possibilities, then trying to find an objective approach to keeping society in order. But these laws don't exist in other countries for a reason. You take murder, which falls into most cultures as being immoral (which i agree it is) but you just assume that the situations are always similar too...they aren't. Murder is surivival sometimes........."and you can take that to the bank."
NARBUS FOR PRIME MINISTER!!!!
There are some morals that I would hope to be universal, but its simply not so........and when we get out heads out of that Western box we live in, we might realize that. Our arguements have been not to convince you that everything is right just because it is based on someone's own perspective. That way any murderer could have justification under that mistaken logic........it was just to say that there is more than just our viewpoint when looking at something much more complicated then simple "right" and "wrong". THere are so many factors that if one culture values water more than human life, it gives them the right to kill for that water, because it means their survival. In our society that arguement is garbage because you can just go on welfare, or beg, or get a job, or even die..........and then it comes down to right and wrong....after we understand its context. Your objectivism doesn't seem to account for that.
I hope you can see past the obvious morals in which you are citing......you don't seem to follow me at all with your statement about me making laws. It did make me laugh, but you totally missed the point. I can make laws that are distinctive to our culture, of course by hearing all the arguements and possibilities, then trying to find an objective approach to keeping society in order. But these laws don't exist in other countries for a reason. You take murder, which falls into most cultures as being immoral (which i agree it is) but you just assume that the situations are always similar too...they aren't. Murder is surivival sometimes........."and you can take that to the bank."
NARBUS FOR PRIME MINISTER!!!!
Posted: 1/19/2003, 8:32 pm
No, by making blanket statements such as this, you step outside the lines of rational thought, and once you do that, all discussion/debate breaks down.
i am not the one who is being irrational here, narbus. matt himself said "Murder is wrong.......and of course right."
that is a contradiction, man! contradictions are irrational!
blanket statements like "murder is wrong" are a function of rational thought. when a person looks at reality in a rational and objective fashion they will always find murder to be wrong. there is no grey area. it is never alright.
it is irrational to declare otherwise.
if you think i'm wrong, prove it. don't just say "you're wrong" and quote little bits of my post and act like a dickhead. PROVE. ME. WRONG. use examples. maybe draw a diagram. but for fucks sake, back up your assertion that i don't know what i'm talking about.
Posted: 1/19/2003, 8:39 pm
wow, i was hoping something more naked.