Stripped

DamascusSteel · Post by **DamascusSteel** » 1/21/2003, 5:16 pm

xchrisx wrote: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.

That's my point, there is no such thing as objective thought, your own feelings and emotions get in the way. No person can say they live their life objectively, it's subjective, that's why there are two types

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.

I never said skin tone alone was the factor, it's simply the most distunguishing feature. Blacks and white and asians and all other races are different, they have large differences between the races, that is scientific fact. The stance of those who believe whites are superior are that of the differences between the races gives whites the upper hand so to speak.

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 KKK is wrong to you and me, not to them, we are in no way superior to them on the stance of morals, we simply agree with the majority.

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.

Well obviously not all people do, because these acts had taken place. And I honestly don't think these are the only people in the world who thought that.

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.

In a morally objective world, I don't believe that, I believe it's subjective, in which case it's not illogical.

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

Ok, explain that to me

committed · Post by **committed** » 1/21/2003, 5:17 pm

about civil suits:

that's because people are retarded.

DamascusSteel · Post by **DamascusSteel** » 1/21/2003, 5:19 pm

xchrisx wrote: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.

Getting in an accident is not illegal, hence you almost have consent from the government to get in accidents, since it is not stated you can't.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 1/21/2003, 5:19 pm

then the liabilty would fall on the shoulders of the road's owner, but that's not what you were talking about. you said in an auto accident with no speed limits the owner is at fault. this is not true.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 1/21/2003, 5:21 pm

it is up to you if you want to dispute the existence of opposites. i'm not going to fight you on that. thank you for confirming that things can be lumped into categories, but as i knew that already, you needn't repeat it again.

you are correct. two objects cannot be the same as eachother unless they are the exact same object, and even then they will have slight differences in physical characteristics.

this is my point: reality is not affected by perception. as you yourself just admitted, two objects cannot be the same. even if you percieve them to be the same, they have objective characteristics that exist in reality, and those are not affected by perception. A is A, it cannot be B, for it is A.

once again, if morality is realitve, on what grounds does society punish the baby killer? are you now saying it is okay for society to force it's morals on others?

the concept of majority rule relies exclusively on the use of force. force is irrational and suspends man's right to choice. it renders his thinking mind useless. if you choose to use force, you are not acting human.

might makes right is always dangerous because initiating force, especially to get your way in an argument, is wrong.

would i rather die then steal? rather? no. but would i be right if i stole? no. so therefore, i would not steal.

Brooklin Matt · Post by **Brooklin Matt** » 1/21/2003, 5:22 pm

xchrisx if i drove to your house to blow away your family would you stop me??? (this is a hypothetical) A. The police or neighbours cannot help you save someone walking down the street who happens to run as fast as Michael Johnson......B. I come prepared with a loaded shotgun which I demonstrate by shooting your in with. and C. Your family is home!!

Do you have the right to kill me then. Or do I have the right to kill your family because you will not act.

Is taking a human life wrong? I mean I've come down to the simplest way of saying that killing (not even murder) is necessary. Police don't let their partner get shot before they start shooting. they shoot when they are threatened at a certain level. This is them being rational, an instinct of survival. Since you have ignored that with the house in the woods scenario one might assume that you are not rational and have very selfish morals which are not functional outside of yourself. They just seem to break down into actionless behaviour that obviously has no significant chance of causing the situation to desolve.

If I felt hopeless as to finding any food or water i would break in for shelter, post a note on the door if possible so that the owner is aware that I am there, drink some hot chocolate, and write xchrisx is going to die in the bushes. In that scenario I'm sure it was meant that all resources had been exhausted, that either hypothermia or dehydration were setting in and that your body did not have much time. It would be a shame for you to die when really all you had to do was break in, get some shelter and food, and maybe go to court so that you could either spend a year in jail, or in all probability, go home safe. I still am baffled by your logic. People have rights.......do those rights give them the power for you to die in the woods because their materialistic possessions are more important then your life?? That sounds like a case of mistaken priorities in your moral reasoning to me.

Hey, thanks for painting me as a elitist oh wise one. Me and Narbus are quite happy now that we have attained tha rank. Gimme 5 Narbus. :mrgreen:

DamascusSteel · Post by **DamascusSteel** » 1/21/2003, 5:25 pm

YourJesus wrote:once again, if morality is realitve, on what grounds does society punish the baby killer? are you now saying it is okay for society to force it's morals on others?

No, but the same right the killer had to kill the baby is the same right society has to punish him

the concept of majority rule relies exclusively on the use of force. force is irrational and suspends man's right to choice. it renders his thinking mind useless. if you choose to use force, you are not acting human.

So what happens when someone kills someone else, don't we use force to arrest them, bring them to trial and punish them?

might makes right is always dangerous because initiating force, especially to get your way in an argument, is wrong.

Because? It's only wrong if you're on the other side of the might.

would i rather die then steal? rather? no. but would i be right if i stole? no. so therefore, i would not steal.

but given those choices, you would steal

committed · Post by **committed** » 1/21/2003, 5:25 pm

killing is still WRONG even if you think it is necessary.

right and necessary are two different things.

DamascusSteel · Post by **DamascusSteel** » 1/21/2003, 5:28 pm

YourJesus wrote:this is my point: reality is not affected by perception. as you yourself just admitted, two objects cannot be the same. even if you percieve them to be the same, they have objective characteristics that exist in reality, and those are not affected by perception. A is A, it cannot be B, for it is A.

Reality is always affected by perception. It's too dark in here, it's cold, you're funny, he's driving too fast, stop typing so slow. Your perception of reality changes it for you constantly, and no two people view it the same way. It's the same with right and wrong. It's like I've said since the start, right and wrong is not factual, it's your perception of reality. We're not discussing whether or not someone killed someone, we're discussing whether or not it's right to. That's where perception comes in.

DamascusSteel · Post by **DamascusSteel** » 1/21/2003, 5:29 pm

whenyoukissedme wrote:killing is still WRONG even if you think it is necessary.

right and necessary are two different things.

Nothing is nesessary, everything is the lesser of two evils and is all based on perception.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 1/21/2003, 5:33 pm

A man has broken in to your house, and you both have guns at each others heads. I think it's necessary to pull the trigger, don't you?

committed · Post by **committed** » 1/21/2003, 5:34 pm

it's still wrong.

DamascusSteel · Post by **DamascusSteel** » 1/21/2003, 5:35 pm

Axtech wrote:A man has broken in to your house, and you both have guns at each others heads. I think it's necessary to pull the trigger, don't you?

It's in my best interests to, but it's not required I do. Necessary implies I have no other option when clearly I do.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 1/21/2003, 5:36 pm

Why? If you don't kill the intruder, he will kill you. It is the only option that won't end up in your death.

You can't just call everything "wrong", there has to be a line somewhere. For me, the line is self defence.

committed · Post by **committed** » 1/21/2003, 5:37 pm

instead of having your gun at his head, why don't you point it at his shooting arm?

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 1/21/2003, 5:39 pm

Damacus - all my proofs, all my beliefs, and everything i know stems from the truth that men are rational creatures. all men have the capacity to be reasonable. some will choose to ignore it.

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." - Ayn Rand

Therefore, do not ask me to prove something to you if you deny reason. It will not work. If you are willing to use the faculty of reason that you were given by virtue of being a man, you will then be able to see what i am saying. if you deny reason, we will get no where and i will be leaving you alone.

on to your post:

No, Damacus, I would not steal. I don't believe in stealing.

So it is your belief that the use of force is morally okay, just so long as you are the one iniating the violence? therefore, according to you, rape is ok.

the baby strangler did right because he iniated force against the baby. since he was stronger, he was right.

using force in defense of yourself is not the same as iniating force. self-defense is a rational choice. iniating violence is not. using force in defence of others is also a rational choice.

this is one line i have pacticular trouble with:

No, but the same right the killer had to kill the baby is the same right society has to punish him

according to you, morality is realitive. therefore, the killers rights are stemed from his moral beliefs. although the beliefs of society are different from his, from your own mouth you believe them to be no better.

so, i am asking, if society subscribes to one moral code, and the killer to another, and all moralities are equal and realitve to who you are, how is society right to punish the killer for doing something that was also right? especially considering that society has no rights over the killer because they subsribe to different beliefs and forcing your morals on others is, by your own admission, wrong.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 1/21/2003, 5:45 pm

DamascusSteel wrote:Reality is always affected by perception. It's too dark in here, it's cold, you're funny, he's driving too fast, stop typing so slow. Your perception of reality changes it for you constantly, and no two people view it the same way. It's the same with right and wrong. It's like I've said since the start, right and wrong is not factual, it's your perception of reality. We're not discussing whether or not someone killed someone, we're discussing whether or not it's right to. That's where perception comes in.

You may percieve the amount of light in the room to be too little for your liking, but that does not change the amount of light in the room.

you may say that 0C is cold whereas someone else may disagree. that does not change the fact that it is zero degrees out.

You may think a person is driving to fast where another may think he is driving too slowly. neither perception of his speed changes his speed.

objectively we have a room that is not well lit [i only use a subjective term because i do not know the unit in which light is measured], a temperature in that is zero degrees and a speed of 110 mph. perceptions of these objective facts may be different but all those perceptions are based on the same objective fact.

killing an intruder that enters your home with the intent to kill you is moraly permissible as you are resisting the use of force instead of iniating it.

DamascusSteel · Post by **DamascusSteel** » 1/21/2003, 6:05 pm

YourJesus wrote:Damacus - all my proofs, all my beliefs, and everything i know stems from the truth that men are rational creatures. all men have the capacity to be reasonable. some will choose to ignore it.

I tend to think others have a different line of rationality, due to different values

Therefore, do not ask me to prove something to you if you deny reason. It will not work. If you are willing to use the faculty of reason that you were given by virtue of being a man, you will then be able to see what i am saying. if you deny reason, we will get no where and i will be leaving you alone.

I'm denying reason because i refuse to believe in a moral absolue?

No, Damacus, I would not steal. I don't believe in stealing.

So you place someone else possesions over human life

So it is your belief that the use of force is morally okay, just so long as you are the one iniating the violence? therefore, according to you, rape is ok.

Rape is ok, to the rapist, punishing him is ok, to society.

the baby strangler did right because he iniated force against the baby. since he was stronger, he was right.

And society was right because they could enforce thier values.

using force in defense of yourself is not the same as iniating force. self-defense is a rational choice. iniating violence is not. using force in defence of others is also a rational choice.

The use of force is required, period. Subjective or Objective

according to you, morality is realitive. therefore, the killers rights are stemed from his moral beliefs. although the beliefs of society are different from his, from your own mouth you believe them to be no better.

so, i am asking, if society subscribes to one moral code, and the killer to another, and all moralities are equal and realitve to who you are, how is society right to punish the killer for doing something that was also right? especially considering that society has no rights over the killer because they subsribe to different beliefs and forcing your morals on others is, by your own admission, wrong.

Society has no moral high ground on him, they however have the sheer power to force their punishment on him. Society does not get it's orders from god, they get it from their own morals, and their power enforces it.

DamascusSteel · Post by **DamascusSteel** » 1/21/2003, 6:07 pm

YourJesus wrote:You may percieve the amount of light in the room to be too little for your liking, but that does not change the amount of light in the room.

you may say that 0C is cold whereas someone else may disagree. that does not change the fact that it is zero degrees out.

You may think a person is driving to fast where another may think he is driving too slowly. neither perception of his speed changes his speed.

objectively we have a room that is not well lit [i only use a subjective term because i do not know the unit in which light is measured], a temperature in that is zero degrees and a speed of 110 mph. perceptions of these objective facts may be different but all those perceptions are based on the same objective fact.

killing an intruder that enters your home with the intent to kill you is moraly permissible as you are resisting the use of force instead of iniating it.

That's my point, we aren't discussing whether or not someone had commited murder (how much light is in the room) we're discussing whether it was right or wrong (is it too dark?) The murder itself is the objective fact, it's moral weight is subjective.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 1/21/2003, 6:20 pm

so damacus, it is your position that morality is defined by whoever is strongest, that there is no absolute morality, there is no right and wrong, and that the only absolute is physical power?

then we are done. been nice talking to you. i cannot reason with the unreasonable, and i cannot debate rational things with the irrational. yes, it is irrational to suggest that the only right is force.