xchrisx wrote:you seem more interest in arguing semantics then making any actual points. what i meant, which is clear as day, is that the non-agression principle states that agressing against another individual is immoral behaviour.
how immoral behaviour is prevented is up to us.
It's about fucking time. I thought I was going to have to answer this for you.
According to your morality, aggressing against someone is ONLY immoral.
Now comes the clincher. Morality is subjective. That's what my beliefs say. Can you prove me wrong?
i know what my moral structure is founded on. your ideas are, at this point, incredibly unclear. i don't understand how you not knowing the definition of guily and innocent have anything to do with my moral fibre. clarify.
Given how much you're throwing around terms like guilty, innocent, moral, immoral, and so on, I have to wonder if you've actually considered what they actually mean. Given by your responses, you haven't.
there is no "line drawn". you, and only you, are responsible for any voluntary action you take. if your actions cause harm to someone else, you are "guilty" of harming them.
So. The banana. Am I guilty? My actions (dropping the banana peel) caused harm to someone else. Had I not dropped that banana peel, that man would have been fine. I certainly didn't intend for him to slip, but slip he did.
Am I guilty?
the moral value of killing someone is the objective reality here. it is either right, or wrong, like the pickle has a distinct taste, killing someone has a distinct moral value. how you react to it is up to you.
So, you believe that somewhere out there, there is some kind of baseline morality that can be applied to all people in all situations.
I don't believe in any such thing.
maybe in your english language, but in mine, and the one most people speak, the word "genius" is used to describe people who are very smart, ie have an IQ of over 140. it is not a relative term. whether or not einstein was a genius does not depend on who you compare him to. despite the fact that albert's IQ was some 40 points lower the John Stuart Mill's, he is still a genius.
As I pointed out before, the term "IQ" is not one that is suitable for use here. The tests used to determine it are biased, and do not provide a complete picture of intelligence. So trying to use it as any kind of baseline for "genius" is, therefore, also inherently flawed.
Second: I don't know why the hell you have so many problems with your own sources. ANY of the meanings you listed for genius are equally valid. There is no rule saying that you have to meet all the defintions of a word to actually be that word. You can be a genius simply by possessing extraordinary intelligence. But "ordinary" and therefore "extraordinary" are subjective terms, and therefore genius can be a subjective term, as well.
you're taking the definition out of context, but nice try. when you refraining or forebearing would be me preventing the woman from getting help. so would be restraining or preventing. i am not preventing her from getting help, i am just not helping her.
You are withholding a seat in your car. You are withholding a ride to the hospital. You are refraining from providing aid.
You are acting on your choice. She is dead because of it.
Objectively:
Is she dead? Yes.
Did you provide aid? No.
Had you provided aid, would she be alive? Yes.
Therefore: Did your withholding of aid contribute to her death? Yes.
Objective fact. You seem to love it.
i must've missed it. not feeding your son is different from the woman in the dessert. your son is in his current situation because of you. you brought him into this world, you are holding him in your home, where he is unable to leave. you are responsible for his starvation.
No, sorry. It's his fault that he can't leave. I didn't lock the doors. I didn't buy a dog, or chain him up. Is it my fault he's only 2 months old? I can't control time.
By the way. No one answered this post I made earlier. I feel it's a rather important one, so I'll bring it back up.
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.
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
