Buckle up. Class and work conspired to keep me away from my computer for several hours, So I have a lot of catching up to do. Given the number of replies I'd like to make, I will be leaving out some parts of posts. If you really want me to address something, feel free to ask.
xchrisx wrote:man, listen to me. that is impossible. seriously, you and matt sit there and talk like a pair of nobel prize winners, but the further we go into this discussion the more obvious your ignorance becomes.
the same thing cannot be right and wrong at the same time. it is impossible. it can only be one, or the other. this is simple metaphysics, man.
No. It depends on how you look at it. I may think it's wrong to use a Mac. Tony Hawk thinks it's right. What is it? Both. Depending on the viewpoint.
xchrisx wrote:don't talk to me about logic. as you have repeatedly shown me in this conversation, you do not understand it.
there are only two choices here. either you are right, and slavery is wrong, or slavery is right, and you are wrong. you cannot both be right, because that would be a contradiction, which is illogical. i don't care if you "answered that in another post" because your answer was wrong. contradictions are illogical. this is an object fact. that you sit here and deny something as elementary as this is outright mind boggling.
Trying to argue that I've made a mistake in the past in not a reason for you to weasel out of explaining your mistakes. Don't try it.
Two: As was said before, if you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premise. In my above example, my premise is that Mac's don't do everything that PC's do. The opposite premise working in Mr. Hawk's perspective. Both are true. There are things that Mac's do that PC's don't, and there are things that PC's do that Mac's dont. So the situations are different, because of the way we individually view the Mac, so the results are different.
xchrisx wrote:a.no, you don't see the color green. that doesn't change the fact that it still looks the same to those of us who do. idiot.
No, your exact question was: "is the color blue "different to different people"? Yes. To me certain colors are different than to you. Saying "Is the color blue different within a group of people who all see it in the same way" is a loaded question, twit.
b. you've been arguing nihilist philosophy, or some rude version of it which i like to refer to as "bullshitism", for the last 3 or 4 pages of this discussion.
Given all the accusations of not being able to hold an opinion simply because I haven't read every book you have (btw: You also haven't read every book I have, so stop the bullshit), stating that what I've been posting is nihilism is moronic in ways I had, up until now, only guessed could exist. Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
I have stated over and over again that there are values, and that I do believe in things. My point is that my values are not yours, nor do I believe in what you do.
what the hell are you talking about? i never said it was absolutely always wrong to kill, i said it was absolutely always wrong to kill innocent people.
And who gets to decide who's innocent?
we recommend texts by world famous philosophers for you to study, and you recommend a movie. i think that basically sums up the entire debate right there.
you're ignorant and you don't want to be educated. from now on, this discussion will be purely for my own amusement purposes.
Although it is only the start of the semester, so I don't currently have a lot of coursework taking up time, I am still under certain time contraints, and am sensitive to the same in other people, so I recommended a movie because it would take up less time, and still get my point across.
a. hitler was a human
b. narbus is a human
c. therefore, narbus is a nazi.
see?
First: It's called having non-reflexive properties. Basically, it means that simply because A = B, B does not necessarily = A.
Second, I supplied givens in my statements, to alleviate the above logical fallacy. Given that the defining aspect of my example was Fruit or Not Fruit, then yes, apples are oranges. You gave no such given, mainly because there isn't one that works.
My point was that the situations depend on what you're looking for. As Damascus said, even apples aren't the same. But someone chose to group them all together. I have chosen to group all fruits together. Different way of looking at the same situation, both of which are valid.
You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
--Terry Pratchett
When it's cold I'd like to die
