no, corey, you're missing the point.
furthermore, an infant once born can survive without it's mother. it cannot survive without
someone looking after it. i would think this is obvious. once again, no inconsistencies.
maybe you should resort to the "bonehead" argument again. i think you were getting further with that.
right and wrong is binary, it's either a 1 or a 0. you're either right, or your wrong.
however, you can do something that is wrong and have it cause a minimal amount of harn [ pushing someone, for example ] or, you can do a massive amount of harm [ cutting off someones head ].
both actions are wrong. there is not difference in the "wrongness" of the actions, but there is a different in the harm done.
right and wrong are like colours. if you two paintings, one which is light blue and the other which is dark blue, do you say the second is "bluer" or darker? the shade of the colour is what would be the harm in this metaphor.
matt - while the use of force can be in the self interest of an individual, it is never reasonable or rational. pulling out a gun renders your mind useless, which is not the human way of doing things
narbus
My main point has always been that there is no sacred right to life.
and my main point is that there is a sacred right to life, from which all of our other rights are derived. recognizing this right is in man's best interest as it preserves life for all.
since man is a reasonable being, and being such is what elevates us from the lesser animals and has brought us to where we are today, to ignore reason and claim that there is no right to life is ignoring your mind and the human element inside you. it's not rational.
First, we appear to be in a jam. Your much vaunted objectivism has a flaw. You can't prove me wrong.
the philosophy is not flawed because it cannot be proven. no philosophy can.
So? I didn't agress against him. I didn't use force, I didn't try and hurt him, I didn't intend to hurt him, I didn't attack him, directly act to remove either his life or his freedom, I did nothing that falls under the category of "wrong" that you have laid out. Nothing at all. Yet you claim I am still guilty.
a. guilty of something does not mean you've done something wrong. i can be guilty [ that is, responsible for or deserving of blame ] for cooking my girlfriend a cake on her birthday. does this mean i am wrong?
b. negligent or unintentional agression [ ie dropping a bananna peel or shooting your gun randomly ] is still agression. maybe you weren't trying to hurt anyone, but you still did. moral of the story? be more careful.
No, actually I have a very valid point.
Define ordinary. When I was five, ordinary was finger painting and nap time.
Now ordinary is wanting that Fourier bastard to suffer because his transforms are a bitch to apply, and nap time.
Ordinary, in every sense of the word, is a subjective term.
Also, you are stating that IQ tests are the way to tell who's a genius and who isn't. I have pointed out, on VERY solid ground, that IQ tests are a very poor method of determining intelligence. So you have a flaw.
ok, i have been biting my tounge on this thus far because i thought it was a nitpick, but i must point out that after you reach the age of 2, you've reached your final intelligence level. what you are talking about here is KNOWLEDGE, yes, you know more stuff then you did when you were 5, but you're not any smarter.
ordinary is the average, the baseline intelligence level [ however you want to measure it ] in particular society. so yes, it is a subjective term. however, since our society is the planet Earth, i don't think that matters a whole lot here.
you continue to ignore me. are you an idiot? no. if we stand you next to steven hawking, do you suddenly become dumber? no. you remain at whatever intelligence level you currently have, which is likely the ordinary one.
geniuses are people who are substantially more intelligent then the average individual. once again, if einstein is compared to john stuart mill, does that make einstein an idiot? or is he still a genius?
Because you do exist. Twit.
ha. this is not even close to an answer.
i repeat: how could my actions be the direct cause of her death if, provided i did not exist, she would still die?
No fallacy. By not preventing this, you contributed to the death.
no, i did not. see above. i had an opportunity to stop the death, which i did not take, but this does not change the fact that without me alive, she'd still be dead. i have nothing to do with her dying or not dying.
But I didn't place the baby there. I did nothing. There was a baby, I left it lay. Hell, I'll even open the door.
I didn't cause his death. "I just didn't prevent it."
ultimately, is the baby able to leave your house and get food for himself? no. secondly, he's your baby, so you were the one who brought him into the house. he is your responsibilty until he is old enough to fend for himself.
First: Yes, people have different morals. So?
Second: Wrong according only to you.
wrong according to reason. the murdering of an innocent person is not reasonable action.
OOh, logical fallacy. It's called "prejudical language." It falls under the category of "Appeal to Motive."
using force is unreasonable. humans wou act in a reasonable fashion, therefore, would not agree with the use of force.
what's the problem here?
Not without using prejudical language, I'll bet.
i already have, several times. you just don't listen.
There are SO many things I could respond to that! The phallic imagery is endless! It's comments like those, Corey, that make it hard for me to keep my couth!
