ClumsyMonkey.net

the government dictates morality to people all the time
even with taxes they are saying things like beer and cigarettes are bad because look at how things like that are taxed much more

yes.

but that doesn't change the fact that they have no moral right to do so.

YourJesus wrote:here's where i get stuck. according to my earlier assertion, all wrongs are the same and they're all punishable in the same way. therefore, you can fine me, or ban me, or shoot me in the head.

which kind of makes me uncomfortable.

you see, i don't see how right and wrong can be measured, but the idea of shooting somebody in the head because he rear-ended you or sped on your road doesn't sit well with me.

there has to be some way to objectively measure the degree of wrong and the degree of action required. I know somebody smarter then me must know the way.

ahhh. And this is the point I was trying to make.

Here's another one. Should Microsoft be allowed to kill individuals who install one Windows license on more than one machine? Considering it violates their license agreement?

Should each one of us be sentenced to death for ripping MP3's off of CD's without the author's consent?

Truly, there must be a level of morality.

There is a level of morality..........its in the law is it not?? The law is always changing to meet new crimes. The law is morality for the masses. It tells us what we can do and can't...........it may not work appropriately on an individual level, but indeed it is what morality in our society determines. I think that's the best example.

Yourjesus wrote

the government mandates a number of laws that are irrational. there is nothing immoral about driving a certain speed, therefore, no law is required.

there is nothing immoral about selling sex for money. nor is there anything immoral against drug use.

the government does not have the moral authority to tell me what to do. nor does anyone.

Ummmm, selling sex for money can have a corrupting effect on society. I'm sure you could see how it may force younger females into a life of prostitution and disease by people of higher power than them. I'm surprised you find that to me moral?? And the government does have the moral authority to tell you what to do. Its in the law. Because society's needs come before the individuals. I know you don't like that, and I don't either sometimes, but if personal freedom reigned there could be no order.

Driving 200 km an hour is perfectly fine when everyone else is going 100km an hour?? What about 100 km/h down a residential street with bad lighting and lots of children about. Its damn irresponsible........immoral is up to you..........but I'm sure if you look at it you could see how its quite negligent of other peoples safety.

What in blazes is irrational about speeding laws. Maybe on the highway it could be possible like in some european countries, but on city streets and residential areas I find it damn well necessary.

Drug use is both accepted and entirely illegal. It depends which one. If you are saying we should be able to shoot up any drug we want, sniff glue and gasoline, then take some of those blue pills that make everything turn into monsters, this leads to someone losing a grip on reality and unable to tell the difference between right and wrong. Allowing someone to do that then get in the car makes them a weapon......and I'm surprised you said that.....drunk driving is an offence.........because it involves drug use. Other hardcore drugs are so addictive you can die of shock after taking it once or twice....(I read that I believe but I'm not 100%) Drugs can control yor life and even if you don't want to take them you can't control yourself. Saying that these drugs are not immoral is a blind statement to me. It ignores many consequences of drug addiction, taking advantage of residential neighbourhoods, etc. Where do you think up what's moral, and then all of a sudden say that these things are fine???

Yourjesus wrote:

however. if you build the road, then it's yours. you own it. you may use it as a means to finance your life. you have the moral right to use your property in any way you see fit, and furthermore, you have the moral right to determine how others will use your property.

Where is this moral right coming from?? And you can't use your property in any way you see fit. We'd like to believe that, but it is simply not so. If you look at City Master Plans they do designate what you can do on that land, and what you can't. Also, there is a debate in Toronto about residential area spreading into the Oak Ridges Moraine (environmentally protected land) But since some people already own land there, the government is telling them that they cannot build anything there...........despite it being their property. In this case, a person't property is superceded by society's demand that it be protected. In the end the government will probably arrange to pay some sort of payment for the land in question in order to make both groups happy.

Matt wrote:Yourjesus wrote:

however. if you build the road, then it's yours. you own it. you may use it as a means to finance your life. you have the moral right to use your property in any way you see fit, and furthermore, you have the moral right to determine how others will use your property.

Where is this moral right coming from?? And you can't use your property in any way you see fit. We'd like to believe that, but it is simply not so. If you look at City Master Plans they do designate what you can do on that land, and what you can't. Also, there is a debate in Toronto about residential area spreading into the Oak Ridges Moraine (environmentally protected land) But since some people already own land there, the government is telling them that they cannot build anything there...........despite it being their property. In this case, a person't property is superceded by society's demand that it be protected. In the end the government will probably arrange to pay some sort of payment for the land in question in order to make both groups happy.

In YourJesus' defense, he is not stating the way things are but the way things should be. He views goverment property and policies as void.

matt, you are under the statist impression that:

a.) laws are always rational
b.) laws are always right

neither is true. if the government passed a law mandating that all women under the age of 7 be shot on sight by any law-abiding citizen, would you obey it?

the law against drugs is neither rational nor right. it makes no sense for the government to interefere in the business of others. what right does the goverment [ a group of men ] have to dictate to other individuals what they can and cannot put in their bodies?

the law does not grant the government any special moral powers. being elected does not grant a man more insight or intelligence. many of the people governing me are less intelligent then i am, and none of them know anything about me. who are they to tell me how to live?

prostitution is the womans business. there is no reason for a law to exsit barring consentual sex between two adults, even if money changes hands.

people are forced into prostitution today. the law against it prevents nothing and only serves to criminalize the people and the activity.

driving 200 km/h is irresponsible, but tell me, would you drive that speed if there was no law against it? people are not as stupid as you believe. man has a faculty of reason, and i trust his discretion far more then i trust a government's law.

you believe drugs are immoral, but you cannot prove it objectively. the theory only exists in your mind. if you willingly take drugs, you are not hurting anybody but yourself, and your body is your business. what you do while you're high is your responsibility as well. some people can take drugs and act responsible, others cannot. however society has no business interefering in the lives of others saying "well you COULD do damage while high" especially since a person "COULD" do damage simply by leaving his home in the morning.

i know you can't use your property for your own purposes, but you should be able to.

YourJesus wrote:narbus:

i don't know what the childs project had to do with my question. i didn't ask if you could use both apples and oranges for one application but not for others.

my question was, are their objective characteristics the same? you didn't answer it.

My answer was: There are far too many objective characteristics involved even in something as basic as an apple. It's shape, mass, density, the tree it's from, the type of apple, the taste, the way it sits in a bowl, the temperature, what I think it of it, what you think of it, the way that if you hold it just right it looks like a little smily face, the length of the stem, when it ripened, when it will sour, who will eat it, what they will do with the core, how many seeds it has, how it looks from Jupiter, how it is affected by the gravity of the sun, how it is affected by the gravity of the earth, how it's minute amount of gravity affects pluto, and the Andromeda system and on and on and on and on.
There are too many objective characteristics for us to judge. Just too many. It's not possible. So, as people, we pick and choose which objective characteristics we look at. In one case, the characteristics that make it a fruit are what we care about, so to us, it's as far as we care, it's fruit. In another case the characteristics that make it an apple, not an orange, are what we care about, so as far as we care, it's an apple.

are they the same thing? does A = B as you have stated previously or do you know wish to take that earlier assertion back based on the fact that you know have a clearer understanding of what is being asked?

I knew what you were asking in the first place. You didn't know what I was answering. Not my fault.

narbus, you nicely proved that perspective shapes opinion. congratulations. but you did not prove that perspective shapes reality, which is what i am arguing against.

Perception affects reality, even in physics, not just philosophy.
To Jack, there was no "missing car." It just wasn't there. What is reality except what's there and what isn't? Jack's reality is different than Bob's (thank God, I'd hate to have to kill Jack, too), just as your reality is differerent than mine. There is no "baseline" reality that everyone shares. We define our own realities.

now on to the baby killer:

you start out with a contradiction: "...didn't say ever that we need to accept everyone else's view. We do need to accept that everyone else HAS a view, and that it's as valid as our own."

if the baby killer's view is as valid is yours, why do you feel it is appropriate to punish him? punishment implies that he is wrong, but according to you, there is no right and wrong.

Here (and I'm going to ignore the "you say believe" bit of your posts, on these grounds too) I'm going to call you on purposely misunderstanding what I'm saying, seeking out flaws where you can't find any. Don't.

i find myself begining to see that you and damacus are of like mind - do you also believe only in force? is it your opinion that "might makes right"?

Yes. So?

affecting scenarios? what scenario? i am asking if things do have objective, unchangeable characteristics, and if they do, then is it possible for objects to be two different things at once.

Yes they do, and yes they can. Next.

you have admitted now that things can be seen objectively, and that if they are looked at objectively, that they will be seen as what they are and not as what they are not.

No. I said that things have an insanely large number of objective characteristics, and humans, not having infinitely powerful minds, have to pick and choose which of those characteristics are important to them in that time and place, and depending on what characteristics we choose to look at, we can see two totally different things.

Our perception in the case of war did not change the fact that the war cost lives. Whether or not it saved lives will never truly be known, as you cannot measure how many people would have died if the war had not been fought unless you claim to be psychic.

The American Revolutionary war was in direct opposition to the oppression of the colonies by England. By fighting that war, we directly gained personal freedom for the people of this country.
Martin Luther King Jr. strove for equal personal freedoms for all people.
Both of these scenarios resulted in greater personal freedom for people.
But war is ALWAYS wrong, according to you. So is MLK wrong? He got the same result.
PS: Before you accuse me of ignoring the lives lost in the war, I'll just point out that you've been ignoring the freedoms gained, too. Look at that. Perspective matters.

Reality - that people are dead - is unchanged regardless of whether you percieve the war to be good or bad. Say what you want about the moral value of the war, for now i'm not focusing on that. But you must concede that the objective facts of the situation are as follows : a war was fought and people were killed. that is what HAPPENED, no matter how you percieve it.

Yes. A war was fought. People died. Earth was trampled. There were some number of lead shots fired. There were babies who cried. There were men who cheered. Those cheers raised a flock of birds that shit on someone's head. Freedoms were gained. Lives were saved. Guns were made. Ore was mined. And on. And on. And on.
You cannot list all the things that happened because of the war. It's not possible. You are focusing on a few results. Only a few, out of an impossibly large number.

what about the color of his eyes? that's an objective quality. how about his height, in feet and inches - an objective quality. his weight is an objective quality. need i go on?

Yes. You left out the bit about how each molecule of air around him, and how he affects each of them individually. Do continue.

narbus - i do not know how you arrived at the conclusion that "reality does not exist, only our perceptions do" but that is not a reasonable nor rational conclusion.

i am arguing only from reason. if you contest it, then you are contesting reason.

No. NO. NO. Reality exists. It is, however, FAR too large a thing for us to put in a nice, neat list like you want to. So we pick and choose what parts of reality we see. Defining a new reality for ourselves.
Reality exists. It's just different for everyone.
And no, I am not contesting reason. I just reason differently than you.

but did any of your thoughts about the empty driveway change the object fact that it is empty?

To Jack, yes. He didn't see an empty driveway, just as I didn't see the cracks. His reality was a cracked driveway. Mine was a cleaner earth.

once again - i am not arguing that different people can percieve the same event differently. Calgary beat the Edmonton Oilers 4-3 the other night. I am an Oiler fan, so I was angry. A Flames fan would be happy. Different reactions, same event. But does my perception of that event, or the Flames fan's perception change the event [Flames 4, Oilers 3?] no.

See, I didn't even know this happened. It wasn't any part of my reality, until you introduced it to me. Until I know it's there, how can I say it exists?

once again

NARBUS:

can an APPLE be EXACTLY THE SAME as an ORANGE at the SAME TIME?

this is what i am asking. i did not ask for the number of objective characteristics that each have. i did not ask for any qualifiers to your answer. this question can be answered with yes or no.

i have no idea where you are going with this "too many characteristics for us to judge" thing. I am not asking you to judge anything. what i am asking is, can an object be two different things at once, ie can black also be white, can that that is alive also be dead. do not deliberatley misunderstand me here or debate semantics. what i want to know is, can a thing that is one thing be exactly the same as a thing that is another thing? can A = B?

I don't care if Jack didn't notice the missing car. That does not change the fact that there is nothing in the driveway, no matter what Jack saw. There is nothing there. Reality is unchanged by his perception. You are arguing that Jack can Bob can see a driveway with nothing on it, and Jack may say "Gee Bob's driveway is cracked" where Bob might be thinking "Where the hell is my car?". I am not arguing that this is impossible. I am saying that no matter what they are thinking, the driveway remains empty.

i did not misunderstand your post. if you say that both the view of the baby killer and the views of society are equal, then why does society get to force it's view on the baby killer? if they're views are both right, and neither are wrong, then there is no moral justification for punishing the baby killer. both sides of a disagreement cannot be right.

why do i disagree with might making right? because force is irrational. you do not need a thinking mind to use force. not to mention, you can force a man to work but not to think. a mind that is forced will not produce. so if you expect the world to run under the threat of violence, eventually you will find yourself and your govenors overrun and your rule of force overthrown. the nature of man is one that does not like being held down.

you have often claimed to be a reasonable thinker, but reasonable thought does not include using force to make your morals stand. a reasonable man needs only reason to form his morals.

affecting scenarios? what scenario? i am asking if things do have objective, unchangeable characteristics, and if they do, then is it possible for objects to be two different things at once.

Yes they do, and yes they can. Next.

Prove, logically, that an apple is exactly the same as an orange, or that a bicycle is exactly the same as a family sedan.

No. I said that things have an insanely large number of objective characteristics, and humans, not having infinitely powerful minds, have to pick and choose which of those characteristics are important to them in that time and place, and depending on what characteristics we choose to look at, we can see two totally different things.

how can you change the fact that an apple is an apple by simply observing different characteristics of the apple?

i have never said that war was always wrong. self defense is morally permissable and wars are fought in the name of self defense.

MLK did not fight a war with guns and tanks and bombs to get his equal rights, did he?

Once again: does your perspective [the war has gained us much freedom] or mine [the war cost many innocent lives] change the fact that there was a war? does your perspective [war gained freedom] change the fact that people died?

i know i can't list all the things that happened as a result of the war... but they still happened, regardless of whether or not i list them.

why do you want me to list all the objective characteristics of a man? what does my listing them help you prove? by acknowledging that objective characteristics exist, you are helping MY point, not yours.

Narbus, if you really believe that we shape our reality, i need proof. in reality, i have a black sentra. you shape your reality so that i don't. then i will try and start my car and see if i can or not. that will end the debate.

I am not arguing that we do not perceive reality differently. I am not arguing that people will all see the same things. I don't CARE that reality is vast and large - i know that already. What I am arguing is that no matter what, the same reality is the one we all live in. Reality exists seperate from our perceptions. The great wall of china exists, regardless of whether or not you think it's really that great of a wall, or whether or not you even consider it a wall. the fact remains that it stands.

So you are saying that your friend Jack in the example could not see the driveway? if you pointed and said "look at my driveway jack" he would say "what driveway?"

you are saying you did not even see the empty driveway, you only saw a cleaner earth?

look - when jack looked at the driveway, it was empty, right? that's what allowed him to see the cracks. You may not have noticed the cracks - does that mean they don't exist? if they don't exist, how could jack have seen them?

So, it is your position that things do not exist unless you know about them?

And you want me to believe that is logical?

how is that reasonable. Help me understand Narbus, how saying that nothing exists unitl you find out about it is reasonable or logical. remember that for a rule to be logical, it must be applicable to all people in all situations.

i await your reply.

I think what Narbus is saying that our morals are shaped by our perspective.
If we don't see the black car then we can't possibly know it exists.

You are right Yourjesus, that if there is not a car in the driveway, there is not a car. No arguement........and I don't think Narbus is arguing that he disagrees with you on that. The problem lies in what we value.....hence what we see. Objectivity works only to prove that something exists.........it has no weighting on how we value it. An example is a human life. The life exists, and we could all say yes it does. however, some people might see it as a piece of meat for dinner, some might see him as a sacrifice for their god, and you might see him as a human being who has no right to be harmed. But is anybody right??? They are all right.........because these people view these things as being true. That is objective. Morals make the issue subjective. We then place values on this life.........but obviously you see him as being human who shouldn't be sacrificed or eaten. Do you protect him from these people if they start to attack him?? Its a dog eat dog world...........despite the way we idealize it as being.

I would protect him to the best of my ability......until my life is in danger.........then I may retreat to save my own life if I feel that I cannot help him. I don't respect these people's morals, but they do exist, and objectively we have to accept that whether they seem reasonable or not.........

Okay. Let's start here.
Reality is the actual physical universe that we exist in. The universe is the way it is regardless of how we perceive it to be. A truth is a truth, it doesn't require that you believe it is true to be so. Perception, however, is how we as individuals, translate that reality into information that we can use in order to relate to the external world. In other words, we all have our own personal version of reality that we carry around in our heads, and are totally unable to relate to any other persons version of reality, or them to ours. But it doesn't change reality.
However, we can, and often do, change our personal realities, which is what I've been saying all along. In my personal reality, the earth is a little bit cleaner. In Jacks, there's a job to be done. In the "baseline" reality, both of these and a thousand more facts are true.

Morals are not something that can be proven as objective fact in the same way that color can be. Saying "That blue light has a wavelength of 420 nm." is objective fact. Saying "The blue light is really tacky," is subjective opinion.
In the same way, saying "This person is dead," is objective. Saying "His death is a bad thing" is subjective.

Morals are simply application of personal values, which are inherently subjective.

I await your reply.

/edit: Matt rocks: "Objectivity works only to prove that something exists. It has no influence on how we value it."

(grammar changed to protect the innocent. )

CoreyRIT wrote:Here's some simple logic:

if X = 1, Y = 3, and Z = 5 then you can make several conclusions:

X != Y
Y != Z
X != Z

Or you can make a relational conclusion:

X < Y < Z

Both are correct.

Corey, before you can make such "conclusions," you need to have premises. You cannot just say X < Y< Z without ascribing terms to them. If you had said X = 1, Y = 3, and Z = 5, and then added premises, such as:

Some X's are Y's
All Y's are Z's
---------------------
Some Z's are X's

It would have been "simple logic." It would have been invalid, as premise two doesn't work, but at least it would be complete. Otherwise they are just letters with numbers attached to them.

CoreyRIT wrote:

YourJesus wrote:
there has to be some way to objectively measure the degree of wrong and the degree of action required. I know somebody smarter then me must know the way.

ahhh. And this is the point I was trying to make.

Here's another one. Should Microsoft be allowed to kill individuals who install one Windows license on more than one machine? Considering it violates their license agreement?

Should each one of us be sentenced to death for ripping MP3's off of CD's without the author's consent?

Truly, there must be a level of morality.

This is where the concept of equality in justice comes in. One act must be reciprocated in the same. Thus, it becomes quid pro quo (this for that). Accordingly, if you commit a murder, you should be willing to give your life in turn as you have given up your own right to life by forcefully removing another's. If you steal from a store, you should be punished according to the severity of the act. This is why there are different degrees of murder charges, and different degrees of theft charges. There IS a reason that the scales of justice are considered the basis of the legal system. Each act needs to be negated by an equal punishment.

NikitaTheIrishesqueSpy wrote:Thus, it becomes quid pro quo

Ah, yes... Squid pro row...

Narbus wrote: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.

we are repeating ourselves here. i have said before that what you think about an action does not change whether the action is right or wrong.

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.

sorry, what mistake? i don't know what you are talking about.

secondly, i don't see what any of that has to do with anything. the point of that quote is that premise's can be wrong. you think blacks are equal to whites, slave owners don't. the slave owners are wrong, therefore we have no contradiction. you and tony aren't both right, you're talking about different things.

And who gets to decide who's innocent?

no one. an innocent person, for the purpose of this discussion, is someone who has not violated anybody's rights, or has not been punished for doing so at this time.

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.

my point is that we weren't talking about fruit. we were asking if apples and oranges can be the same thing, at the same time, individually. the answer is of course, no.

Starting out, what the fuck. There have been a TON of studies about how cultural and racial bias plays into standardized testing. Also, IQ tests tell us nothing about how a person goes about answering questions and solving real life problems. Nor do they explain why people with low scores on IQ tests often behave intelligently in real life - making smart consumer decisions, making wise personal choices, etc. So no, IQ tests are not the most accepted method. If you really want, I'll start directly quoting studies.

o whatever. i don't care about IQ tests. if you say they're no good, then i'll take your word for it. that wasn't my point, my point is that damascus is either a genius or an idiot, not both. how can he find out which? well, i suggested IQ tests as one method.

Hm. Fascinating. You suddenly introduce the third choice "neither" after totally refuting the possiblity of such a choice several times over the course of many, many posts. Look at that.

letting someone die has no moral value. in fact, it's not even an action. not doing anything is neither right nor wrong. as a rule of thumb, the only actions which have moral value are those that effect other people.

Matt wrote:

Nikita, do you see what I'm getting at........an objectivist always views murder as being wrong??...........because there would have to be a certain lack of morality for someone to commit such an act. In other words, they would have to rationally decide that it is murder that they will commit. That they want this person dead. Mens Rea in other word. But if this is not present and we just have the act, it is NOT murder. Sorry, but could you elaborate how an objectivist might view this. I am slightly confused.

I'm glad that you know the meaning of mens rea. What you forget is that in MOST cases, mens rea and actus reus are necessary in order to convict someone. HOWEVER, one can be charged for manslaughter based on actus reus alone. It is still taking someone's life without their consent. Given that fact, I agree that it is not murder, but it is still removal of life without consent, thus the sentence is less. (see my last post on quid pro quo).

And do objectivists take into account the whole context of the situation, or do they simply maintain strange morals based on just the act and not the reason behind it...??

I resent your use of the word "strange." That is applying a subjective term to an objective question. An Objectivist looks at the whole context of a situation, however they apply moral standards to it. They perceive an act as being committed without moral standards and judge it accordingly. An act committed that is not consistent with their moral standards is dealt with accordingly (quid pro quo), while an act that is consistent with their moral standards displays true morality. This does not apply to acts that have no moral value (eg. brushing one's teeth).

Nikita, is xChrisx actually using objectivism in his assessments??........how can being objective have anything to do with morality?? Morality itself is totally subjective. Like Narbus and I have been maintaining in our elitist duo (jk)......objective fact only tells you what happened.........it has nothing to do with why. Right??

Yes he is. I suggest reading his posts more objectively (pun not intended). Morality is not totally subjective, it is your bias that makes it so. I believe that the discrepancy between the two of you is that you try to argue things that have no moral value, and try to apply the same reasoning to things that do, such as murder. Yes, it is a theory based on objective values. These values apply, for the Objectivist to all aspects of life. An example is in regard to love (emotion is always secondary to the mind): An Objectivist will only love another who holds their respect. He will not love someone who lives irrationally. He does not see a romantic partner as a possession, but as an equal; his partner is always free to act according to their own values. However, if these values contradict with those of the Objectivist, there will no longer be mutual respect, and thus, no love. If this confuses you, as I know it's extremely hard to explain, please read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, and then ask questions. If nothing else, they're very good novels for entertainment.

Also, an Objective relationship works for the benefit of each individual mutually. If person A is getting more out of the relationship than person B, person B should, according to Objectivist values, leave the relationship as it is no longer mutual. One cannot ask for more than they can give.

xchrisx wrote:we are repeating ourselves here. i have said before that what you think about an action does not change whether the action is right or wrong.

Right and wrong are inherently subjective terms. What I think about the situation does change if it is right or wrong, to me. And that's all that matters.

sorry, what mistake? i don't know what you are talking about.

Then reread what I quoted you on in the post of mine you quoted.

secondly, i don't see what any of that has to do with anything. the point of that quote is that premise's can be wrong. you think blacks are equal to whites, slave owners don't. the slave owners are wrong, therefore we have no contradiction. you and tony aren't both right, you're talking about different things.

No. We have no contradiction because I am looking at one facet of the situation, slave owners are looking at another facet. We have different premises, hence the results are bound to be different.
And we are talking about whether or not mac's suck. Tony says no. I say yes. Who's right?

xchrisx wrote:no one. an innocent person, for the purpose of this discussion, is someone who has not violated anybody's rights, or has not been punished for doing so at this time.

So, you just decided who's innocent. After saying no one gets to decide. Huh.

my point is that we weren't talking about fruit. we were asking if apples and oranges can be the same thing, at the same time, individually. the answer is of course, no.

Hell, two apples can't even be the same thing, at the same time, individually. What's your point?

xchrisx wrote:o whatever. i don't care about IQ tests. if you say they're no good, then i'll take your word for it. that wasn't my point, my point is that damascus is either a genius or an idiot, not both. how can he find out which? well, i suggested IQ tests as one method.

Nope, sorry. Genius and idiot are inherently subjective terms. Compared to a six year old, Damascus is a genius. Compared to Stephen Hawking, he's an idiot.

letting someone die has no moral value. in fact, it's not even an action. not doing anything is neither right nor wrong. as a rule of thumb, the only actions which have moral value are those that effect other people.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." --Edmund Burke