Stripped

[Corey]

of course stealing is wrong.

How about abortion? (What about the baby's rights in this case?)

What about killing and eating animals? (what about their "inalienable rights"?)

Littering? Loitering? Speeding?

You seem to focus on black and white and ignore all the gray.

I also noticed a couple pages back that either you or YourJesus stated that you do not use people as "tools."

I find that interesting. Do you grow your own food and build your own house? You never payed anybody to do anything for you? Do you have a job? If so, what do you think you are? A resource. aka. a Tool. Everyday you use others as tools. Unless of course you live on a secluded island and fend for yourself. Somehow I doubt that.

[DamascusSteel]

"Are you aware most of the world disagrees with you?"

i could give a shit. most of the world is wrong. i am right. you said so yourself.

So, even though everyone else, even people smarter than you, disagree, you'll still stand by your guns?

That's interesting, because that's exactly the argument you've used againest me. I could call you illogical.

[Corey]

"Are you aware most of the world disagrees with you?"

i could give a shit. most of the world is wrong. i am right. you said so yourself.

that sounds a bit fascist.

[mosaik]

notice, damacus, that i did not compare apples and oranges. i asked if an object that can in fact be one thing and the opposite of that thing at the same time.

black is the opposite of white. can my skin be both colors at once?

can an apple actually be an orange at the same time? i am not asking "do these objects both share characteristics that could group them into a larger category?". I am asking "do these objects both have the exact same objective characteristics? are they the exact same object? can an apple be exactly the same as an orange?"

note how i have now resorted to specific language as each time this question has been asked, you or narbus have changed the question to fit your answer. don't do that again. answer my question, in the form that i have asked it. do not alter it. try, if you will, to meet me half way.

in my first baby strangler example, why would society act out against the baby strangler? according to your earlier assertion, morality is realitve, and therefore the baby killer should be let free as he was acting in a moral way according to his perspective and beliefs. we have to respect eachothers opinions and ways of life, don't we? what gives you the right to act out against the baby strangler?

in my second example, where i maintained that morality and reality are absolute and objective, you will notice that i mentioned concequences.

by saying "we're right because there are more of us" you appear to be taking the point of view that might makes right, and that the only morality is that of the largest group of like minded and dangerouslly armed persons. do you consider this to be a rational point of view?

stealing is always wrong.

[mosaik]

I find that interesting. Do you grow your own food and build your own house? You never payed anybody to do anything for you? Do you have a job? If so, what do you think you are? A resource. aka. a Tool. Everyday you use others as tools. Unless of course you live on a secluded island and fend for yourself. Somehow I doubt that.

Why do you guys always want to debate semantics instead of the actual theory?

yes, i have paid people to clean, cook, and work for me. no, i don't grow my own food.

however, i am not using these people as a means to any end. they have something i want [services or food in this case] and i have something they want [money.] we enter into a voluntary transaction, and agree on the amounts of goods or service to be traded for my money. they get what they want and i get what i want.

that is not using a person. using a person would be allowing him to go to work five days a work to sell insurance policies, and then forcibly deducting sums of money from a paycheque that is rightfully his and taking it for your own means, like the government does to me every two weeks.

[mosaik]

look at all my spelling errors.



i have an Ayn Rand quotes that is relevant here:

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand

[starvingeyes]

look asshole i know a few black guys and i can assure you that they are no way in any way shape or form inferior to you or anyone of your honky tonk buddies. so drop the shit. if i read another post from you wherein you imply or outright state that blacks are inferior to whites i'm going to block your ass and campaign to have you banned.

furthermore, i have given you ample logical support for my beliefs, where you have provided none for yours.

observe:

reality: there is not a new car on your driveway.

you have admitted that simply by believing that there is, you cannot create one.

you therefore admit that your beliefs cannot modify reality.

reality: in the attacks on afghanistan and america, innocent lives were lost.

the exact same thing happened in both places. it is impossible for one to be wrong and the other to be right, as it was the same thing. an action cannot be right and wrong at the same time. this is the reality of the situation. there is no difference between the two events, they were the same action taken by different people.

what we have here is 1 action and 2 groups. please explain to me how something can be right and wrong at the same time, considering that we have concluded that beliefs do not modify reality.

corey - my morality stems from natures law. nature dictates that animals kill and eat eachother.

i haven't read enough on animal liberalism to comment on it one way or the other. based on my current information, i see nothing wrong with the consumption of meat.

an unborn baby is not alive. it cannot survive independently of it's mother, or host. in short, the baby is a parasite. it does not have the right to leech off of the mother unless she allows it to do so. it is not there by right but by privillege and until it leaves the womb and can survive without it's mother, it has no rights.

please do not use the tired argument that newborn babies cannot survive on their own because that is bullshit. maybe not for a long time, but if you shoot the mother in the head after the baby is born, the baby will continue to live. if you shoot mommy in the head before baby is born, baby dies too.

littering, loitering and speeding are private property matters.

as far as the tools thing goes, you're missing the point. my point is that i do not see other human beings as tools with the sole purpose of being a means to somebody elses [ usually "socieity's" ] ends.

damascus - the "people smarter then me" who disagree have people smarter then them disagreeing with them. John Stuart Mill had the known worlds 4th highest IQ. he wrote a book called "on liberty". you should know by the title alone where he stood.

John Locke was no intellectual slouch either, nor was aristotle.

[DamascusSteel]

notice, damacus, that i did not compare apples and oranges. i asked if an object that can in fact be one thing and the opposite of that thing at the same time.[/b]

And I stated nothing is opposite, everything can be grouped in some way to make them the same, it all depends on the variable you use

black is the opposite of white. can my skin be both colors at once?

no, but they are both colors, in which case if you were to compare a black and white man, they would be the same

can an apple actually be an orange at the same time? i am not asking "do these objects both share characteristics that could group them into a larger category?". I am asking "do these objects both have the exact same objective characteristics? are they the exact same object? can an apple be exactly the same as an orange?"

nothing can be the same as something else, an orange can't be the same as another orange. You aren't the same as me, this 4 isn't the same as this 4. they are all different. You can call the same based on the variables you give, but they will still never be the same, they'll just meet the criteria you give it

in my first baby strangler example, why would society act out against the baby strangler? according to your earlier assertion, morality is realitve, and therefore the baby killer should be let free as he was acting in a moral way according to his perspective and beliefs. we have to respect eachothers opinions and ways of life, don't we? what gives you the right to act out against the baby strangler?[/b]

No, because you're leaving out a key part to the equation, the morals of society. He was acting in a way he deemed right and moral, and so does society in punishing him.

in my second example, where i maintained that morality and reality are absolute and objective, you will notice that i mentioned concequences.

And these consequences are brought by man, not god, or anyone else. And man carries out these punishments, not because they have to, but because they feel it's their moral obligation to.

by saying "we're right because there are more of us" you appear to be taking the point of view that might makes right, and that the only morality is that of the largest group of like minded and dangerouslly armed persons. do you consider this to be a rational point of view?

I only have to point to every concept of majority rule. The majority will act according to it's own morals, and force it upon the minority. Might makes right isn't always dangerous, its that might that puts that baby strangler in jail, not a decree from heaven.

stealing is always wrong.

So you would die rather than take someone's food to live?

[DamascusSteel]

look asshole i know a few black guys and i can assure you that they are no way in any way shape or form inferior to you or anyone of your honky tonk buddies. so drop the shit. if i read another post from you wherein you imply or outright state that blacks are inferior to whites i'm going to block your ass and campaign to have you banned.[/b]

Where did I EVER say backs were inferior, I asked you to prove they weren't and that some believed they were

reality: there is not a new car on your driveway.

you have admitted that simply by believing that there is, you cannot create one.

you therefore admit that your beliefs cannot modify reality.[/b]

It's not my belief there is a new car in my driveway. My truck however, is pretty. Not everyone believes it is good looking, but that doesn't make me wrong.

what we have here is 1 action and 2 groups. please explain to me how something can be right and wrong at the same time, considering that we have concluded that beliefs do not modify reality.

Because, (and here's something you seem to be missing out on, when I state something, it's not always my personal belief. I hope you can grasp that.) "I don't like Americans, they can die for all I care, their lives mean nothing to me, and if by bombing them, it creates a better life for me, it's right" Some people follow that creed, and it is my belief that theirs is in no way inferior or superior to mine, or yours, they are equal.

corey - my morality stems from natures law. nature dictates that animals kill and eat eachother.

Animals can kill each other, but we can't? That's not logical

i haven't read enough on animal liberalism to comment on it one way or the other. based on my current information, i see nothing wrong with the consumption of meat.

So....you may very well be wrong is your belief that eating animals is ok?

littering, loitering and speeding are private property matters.

So is stealing

damascus - the "people smarter then me" who disagree have people smarter then them disagreeing with them. John Stuart Mill had the known worlds 4th highest IQ. he wrote a book called "on liberty". you should know by the title alone where he stood.

So the 3rd highest IQ maybe has a differing view, do we simply find the highest IQ and ask him what's right and wrong?

[starvingeyes]

you're skirting the issue damascus. you can enlarge a sample as much as you want until you have concluded that everything is the same of everything.

that's not what we're asking.

we are asking if it is possible for an individual in a population to be two opposites at the same time, like, is it possible for my brother's white skin to also be black?

So you would die rather than take someone's food to live?

moot point. this scenario would never occur. since it is a purely theoretical scenario, then i will answer with the purely theoretical response and say yes. even if i did rob the house, i'd still be stealing and i'd still be wrong.

[DamascusSteel]

we are asking if it is possible for an individual in a population to be two opposites at the same time, like, is it possible for my brother's white skin to also be black?

No, as I stated, you can fit any two things into any criteria to make them fit, or not fit. Right and wrong are not black and white.

I'll give you another example, you think I'm an idiot, fine, doesn't really bother me. My little brother thinks I'm a damn genius. Who's right? Both, even though they are complete opposites. I am both an idiot and a genius, it all depends on who you ask.

moot point. this scenario would never occur. since it is a purely theoretical scenario, then i will answer with the purely theoretical response and say yes. even if i did rob the house, i'd still be stealing and i'd still be wrong.

ok, I'll give you another example, I'm flying in a plane in the Andes mountains with my fellow rugby players, the planes crashes and we land in the snowy mountains, no food, no nothing. Is it right for them to eat the dead to live?

And you say it's wrong to steal to save your own life, is it wrong to allow yourself to die? Assume it's you and a friend and his leg is broken or something and need you to steal the food for him, is is right to allow him to die because you think stealing is wrong?

[starvingeyes]

hook, line, and sinker.

Where did I EVER say backs were inferior, I asked you to prove they weren't and that some believed they were

so you admit that the blacks are not inferior to white people? so wouldn't that make the beliefs of the KKK and southern slave owning population wrong? or are you going back on that now and saying black people are inferior? or are you going to tell me that they're both superior and inferior at the same time?

Because, (and here's something you seem to be missing out on, when I state something, it's not always my personal belief. I hope you can grasp that.) "I don't like Americans, they can die for all I care, their lives mean nothing to me, and if by bombing them, it creates a better life for me, it's right" Some people follow that creed, and it is my belief that theirs is in no way inferior or superior to mine, or yours, they are equal.

fine. that's not what i asked you. you just conceeded that beliefs [ like the one you just quoted ] don't modify reality. the fact that a person believes the killing of innocent people on one piece of dirt to be different from the same thing on another does not change the fact that it is the same. therefore, how can the action be simultaneously be right and wrong?

So....you may very well be wrong is your belief that eating animals is ok?

yes. this surprises you? you're the one arguing that beliefs are never wrong, as you just did in the quote above this one.

So is stealing

yes, but stealing is different because it violates the owners consent every time. when you take something from someone with their consent it's no longer stealing, now it's getting a gift. if i own a road and allow people to speed on it, no trespass against me or my property has been comitted. same goes for littering and loitering.

So the 3rd highest IQ maybe has a differing view, do we simply find the highest IQ and ask him what's right and wrong?

you were the one who decided that because "people smarter then me" disagreed with me i must be wrong. i was just trying to shoot that argument down.

[starvingeyes]

No, as I stated, you can fit any two things into any criteria to make them fit, or not fit. Right and wrong are not black and white.

so, that's a no, his skin cannot be two opposite colors at once?

I'll give you another example, you think I'm an idiot, fine, doesn't really bother me. My little brother thinks I'm a damn genius. Who's right? Both, even though they are complete opposites. I am both an idiot and a genius, it all depends on who you ask.

no, it doesn't. you are either an idiot or a genius. my saying you are an idiot does not make so, nor does my saying you are a genius. you are not both simply because you have been called both.

ok, I'll give you another example, I'm flying in a plane in the Andes mountains with my fellow rugby players, the planes crashes and we land in the snowy mountains, no food, no nothing. Is it right for them to eat the dead to live?

it's gross but in this case i don't see anything wrong with it. they're dead, what do they care?

And you say it's wrong to steal to save your own life, is it wrong to allow yourself to die? Assume it's you and a friend and his leg is broken or something and need you to steal the food for him, is is right to allow him to die because you think stealing is wrong?

yes. stealing is wrong, always, to everyone. even if my friend has no moral qualms about robbing the farmer, it is still wrong, no matter what he may believe.

[DamascusSteel]

hook, line, and sinker.

so you admit that the blacks are not inferior to white people? so wouldn't that make the beliefs of the KKK and southern slave owning population wrong? or are you going back on that now and saying black people are inferior? or are you going to tell me that they're both superior and inferior at the same time?

This is where you've missed the point....and I'm getting tired of stating over and over again.

I have never claimed my beliefs or morals are right for everyone, hell even anyone else, my morals are simply that, my own. My morals tell me that blacks are equal, I've never argued it, never said otherwise, I have blacks friends and once dated a black girl, no one will ever call me a racist, simply because it isn't true.

HOWEVER, my morals are not those of mankind. Other people believe that blacks are inferior, and it is my belief that both are indeed correct, to their respective person. They have their morals, I have mine, both are right for that person, and wrong for the other. It all goes back to my morality is relative belief.

fine. that's not what i asked you. you just conceeded that beliefs [ like the one you just quoted ] don't modify reality. the fact that a person believes the killing of innocent people on one piece of dirt to be different from the same thing on another does not change the fact that it is the same. therefore, how can the action be simultaneously be right and wrong?

Because right for one is wrong for the other, don't you see that? That's my whole point, there is no objective morality, you're trying to get me to prove it's objective (which it can't be, because yes it does contradict) I'm saying it's subjective, in which case, both can be right.

yes. this surprises you? you're the one arguing that beliefs are never wrong, as you just did in the quote above this one.

No, what surprises me is you're telling me your beliefs as they stand may be wrong, even though they are objective.

yes, but stealing is different because it violates the owners consent every time. when you take something from someone with their consent it's no longer stealing, now it's getting a gift. if i own a road and allow people to speed on it, no trespass against me or my property has been comitted. same goes for littering and loitering.

But the government owns the road, and says you can't speed, that's doing something without consent, that's why we get tickets

you were the one who decided that because "people smarter then me" disagreed with me i must be wrong. i was just trying to shoot that argument down.

No, I was stating that you are indeed in my shoes, you have your own morals, that are indeed questioned by people far smarter than both you and I, but we still hold onto them as right. The only difference is you claim yours as objective, I do not.

[DamascusSteel]

so, that's a no, his skin cannot be two opposite colors at once?

That is what I said

no, it doesn't. you are either an idiot or a genius. my saying you are an idiot does not make so, nor does my saying you are a genius. you are not both simply because you have been called both.

Well then who does tell me what I am? Am I an idiot or a genius? How do I find out?

yes. stealing is wrong, always, to everyone. even if my friend has no moral qualms about robbing the farmer, it is still wrong, no matter what he may believe.

Ok, you're kinda missing the point I'm trying to give with these examples, which is a greater wrong? Stealing, or letting someone die? Most people argue human life has more value than material possesions.

[starvingeyes]

that is because mine are objective. you willingly admit that your "morals" are based on the perspective of other people. is murder right or wrong? it depends.

i on the other hand base mine on objective thought.

and the racial issue has nothing to do with morals. it has everything to do with scientific fact, which is not subjective. it is a scientific fact that skin tone is an evolutionary trick for the sole purpose of climate adaptability and has nothing to do with the ability of a particular race to perform at anything.

you are trying to say this is a moral issue. it isn't. the KKK is wrong. that is all there is too it.

the afghanis believe killing americans is right, however, they don't believe killing afghanis is right. the reverse is true of americans. subjective morality dictates that because persons believe different things about different issues, then we cannot state an absolue morality.

however, the americans and afghanis in my example BELIEVE THAT there is a DIFFERENCE between the killing of innocent afghanis and the killing of innocent americans. ask them if they think it's ok to kill innocent children of their own nationality and they'll say no.

you have agreed that beliefs do not change reality. you have also agreed that when it boils down to it, there is no difference between the actions taken by the americans and the afghanis.

so the fact that these two groups may believe there is a difference does not make one appear.

therefore, we have a contradiction on our hands. illogical.

the government owns that road, but they bought it with stolen money. their ownership is void.

[starvingeyes]

then how can the same action be two opposites at once?

Well then who does tell me what I am? Am I an idiot or a genius? How do I find out?

IQ tests are the most accepted method.

Ok, you're kinda missing the point I'm trying to give with these examples, which is a greater wrong? Stealing, or letting someone die? Most people argue human life has more value than material possesions.

letting someone die is not wrong. it's just not right. if you let your friend die out there, you are not responsible for his death. you did not break his leg, you did not starve him. all you did was not help him. the abscence of a postive does not equal a negative. unless you are directly responsible for the peril of an individual, you are not morally obligated to help them.

[Corey]

yes, but stealing is different because it violates the owners consent every time. when you take something from someone with their consent it's no longer stealing, now it's getting a gift. if i own a road and allow people to speed on it, no trespass against me or my property has been comitted. same goes for littering and loitering.

If you own a road and allow others to speed, then you violate the safety of those who drive on it. If some family van gets demolished by a corvette going 150 miles an hour then you just violated their rights. Clearly anyone who ignores this would place no value on human life. Don't try arguing that it is their fault for being on your property. You allowed them there. That would be like inviting someone to your house and then shooting them.

[starvingeyes]

in automobile accidents, one person is always at fault. the responsibility, therefore, for the deaths of the people involved fall on the shoulders of that person, not the owner of the road.

by your same reasoning, the government is responsible for every automotive death that occurs on the road.

[Corey]

The owner of the road is still not at fault if he/she fails to put up a sign when a bridge is out and people drive over it?

The government is at fault for many accidents. You will see several civil suits against the State.