|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 04, 2008 06:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Firstly even though mvass does not like fantasy examples, I will comment on that.
Actually, that's a pretty good example.
Quote:
not everything is black & white, wake up!
Life isn't inherently negative, wake up!
Quote:
you have violated his rights, so to speak
You have violated his rights when you put him in a coma, not every moment continuously. And you can only put someone in a coma if they weren't in a coma previously.
Quote:
No, but you drag the materials that make him up.
Non-living materials don't have a will, so you can hardly say that you drag them.
Quote:
If no one finds out you're stealing, why not steal? That's the invisible necklace idea.
Staling hurts others. Killing that person would result in 1 death, while not killing him would result in 100.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 07:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I do not belive the fetus is alive, and after it has started devoloping brains and stuff...... it is a potential life.
Counterargument please?
"The Church teaches us that a human being is created at conception. Science teaches us the same thing. This is not disputable."
See this article.
I found it, but i found NO logic proving it whatsoever.
I define it alive+ soul. A human without a brain is still a human, but not a "alive person" in my terms.
It cannot think, interact, move, or even survive on its own.
some quotes:
Quote:
Quote:
One argument for embryonic stem cell research is: "They are just going to throw them away anyway."
This argument recognizes they are life, but that somehow being caught in a bad situation, such as being frozen, justifies even necessitates, experimentation. Some good must come out this. This is the same logic used to allow human experimentation in Nazi Germany. The Jewish prisoners were just going to die anyway. Let some good come out their lives that could help others in the future.
We cannot answer one problem with one that is equally evil.
And, might I add, we all are going to die anyway, so if someone suddenly wants to use you as an experiment, he has all the rights to do so -- but wait, he dies too anyway sometime 
Basically, let's take black people and use them in experiments -- they are not worthy anyway, right? (sarcasm)
You are obiusly misunderstanding it, she said the following: "It is going to die any moment now" or "It will die before doing anything more", etc.
Everybody is going to die at a point, the question is "WHEN?".
If a prisoner is sentenced to death, the prisoner on the death row falls into this category. I think there should be a law that these prisoners(they are judged to be killed anyway) are to be used in the reasearch.
The Nazi's was going to kill the Jews and viewed them as extremely inferior, and they used them to do reasearch for the futur generations of the Nazi empire.
"At that point, the reason did not justify the means." is a fitting point for the Nazi reasearch. The fact that it achived some results is a complete different matter.
Quote:
I give you biological facts, I give you religious (in case you believe) explanations... and I give my own society model, and you still always ask me to show some arguments (let alone facts) (remember: one of the above is objective).
Let me put it this simple, i find no "greater" counterargument against me from your side. At most points it is just a point of view that clashes.
Ex:
Nazi: Lets kill the jews(because they are jews)!
Person: But they are people like you and me pal..........
The person here got a greater argument than the Nazi. Not equal, but greater. Bigger, stronger, better(or what you chose to say).
Sorry for using such a bad sterotype by the way.
PS: i know this webpage, spent quite some time at it actually. It is blocked in some religius extreme countrys, and is under constante attack by hackers who does not like what is listed on it, what opinions is written down.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 07:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm sorry, but when ALMOST EVERYONE want the same something (and think it is "good for the majority"), it is not called authoritarian.
Ok, going back to the subject, I think mvass once said (incredible): "A good democratic system should not infringe on personal freedom and rights", a reply to my "Should others decide for you if you live or die?"
Oh and besides, I do not agree, thus I am not of the same opinion -- so perhaps you should look a bit more to see if "everybody" wants. 
And yes, it is called authoritarian, no matter how many monkeys vote for a certain thing (that means, infringing on someone else's rights). A true democracy does not infringe upon personal rights (and it shouldn't be able to), even if it is a vote-based system!
Quote:
Again, in communism, one single person (or few) consider what's "good"; in my example, 99% consider what's "good". BIG DIFFERENCE.
Then take Nazism.
BTW: "all" white people were against black people (all = the ones reaching the media, which you call "everyone").
I'm tired of people like you thinking that they can break others' rights especially when you even dare to use the "freedom of rights" arguments to counter MY arguments? 
Quote:
one person = subjective
majority = objective
If you have such narrow-minded definitions then I don't think this is worth discussing anymore.
So basically, if everyone has the same religion, it is "objective" thus true, right, even if supposedly the religion is only the opinion of the one who initiated it?
You have a flawed logic. Popularity has nothing to do with objectivity -- if 99% people are stupid and 1% know that a nuclear bomb explodes instead of giving life (example), then objectively it explodes.
No matter how many people say something they will not change the way things are.
Quote:
If you don't like this, go to your cave and live as in the Stone Age.
Seriously, I hate people that are against something but BENEFIT from it everyday (why do you use the computer? I doubt that without any of these scientific experiments we (the humans) would arrive here today)
Seriously, I hate that people are WITH something that DOES NOT INVOLVE THEM and they wouldn't like it.
You know, I live in Stone Age, but you don't live at all -- you die in an experiment. Sound better?
Geesh, it's so easy when you are not involved to talk about it. And don't even dare to call me an authoritarian again, at least now I have this argument for myself.
(even though Stone Age has nothing to do with 'sacrifices' for experiments).
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 07:38 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:40, 04 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
not everything is black & white, wake up!
Life isn't inherently negative, wake up!
There are two cases of "life", and you forgot to tell which one you're referring to
One is inherently negative, the other isn't.
Quote:
Non-living materials don't have a will, so you can hardly say that you drag them.
Put it like this.
You make a big room and create a clone that CANNOT MOVE there. The room, every 5 seconds, releases a gas that hurts. So, you're telling me that is ok -- remember the clone is in your property BECAUSE YOU PUT IT THERE, you put the fetus in your womb, you take care of it.
Quote:
Staling hurts others. Killing that person would result in 1 death, while not killing him would result in 100.
So? Should we make exceptions when to infringe upon others' rights? Alright then authoritarian man, if you were there (and let's say that you HATED the 100 people), would you let yourself die so easily?
There's really nothing to discuss with authoritarians -- in fact, can there even be a discussion? Just point the gun at me and I'll agree 
Quote:
I found it, but i found NO logic proving it whatsoever.
I define it alive+ soul. A human without a brain is still a human, but not a "alive person" in my terms.
It cannot think, interact, move, or even survive on its own.
So we're going back to Corribus' excellent arguments. Is a sponge not alive? It should work across species.
Btw: religion says the fetus gets it's soul when it is conceived. But of course you have "your terms" of soul or alive... can't really dispute that
Quote:
You are obiusly misunderstanding it, she said the following: "It is going to die any moment now" or "It will die before doing anything more", etc.
Everybody is going to die at a point, the question is "WHEN?".
If a prisoner is sentenced to death, the prisoner on the death row falls into this category. I think there should be a law that these prisoners(they are judged to be killed anyway) are to be used in the reasearch.
They shouldn't be used for research without their consent. After all, they break the law, they should be punished with death (in this case). (and usually such a consent requires some kind of 'reward' for them)
Quote:
The Nazi's was going to kill the Jews and viewed them as extremely inferior, and they used them to do reasearch for the futur generations of the Nazi empire.
"At that point, the reason did not justify the means." is a fitting point for the Nazi reasearch. The fact that it achived some results is a complete different matter.
Quote:
Let me put it this simple, i find no "greater" counterargument against me from your side. At most points it is just a point of view that clashes.
Biological facts are not a good point of view?
No I forget, how can I add any good point of view if you will cling on this: "A human without a brain is still a human, but not a "alive person" in my terms.". Oh dear, how can I discuss with "your terms" hmmm..
Quote:
Nazi: Lets kill the jews(because they are jews)!
Person: But they are people like you and me pal..........
The person here got a greater argument than the Nazi. Not equal, but greater. Bigger, stronger, better(or what you chose to say).
Sorry for using such a bad sterotype by the way.
And we were all fetuses. Or are you saying that a 2 year old is not deserving of life, since it's "different" than you and me (e.g: it can't reproduce)?
The fetus is just a stage in life.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 07:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You have a flawed logic. Popularity has nothing to do with objectivity -- if 99% people are stupid and 1% know that a nuclear bomb explodes instead of giving life (example), then objectively it explodes.
Oh yeah, I forgot, YOU define objectivity.
Humans, the majority, define what's objective, therefore:
If ALL people say something, then it is objective (e.g. everyone says RED SUCKS - then this is objective for humanity)
If ONE person say something that contradicts the others, then it is subjective (e.g. only one says RED IS COOL - then this is subjective, since every other human does not agree)
btw, who are you to define what's objective and what's not? Not to mention that it's also you who "defined" what's good and what's not (in the Moral Philosophy thread).
I mean (an exaggerated example), let's consider that murder is ok and everyone accepts it. You come and say: "Hey, murdering someone is simply wrong because you kill another person". YOU are the only one with this idea, so YOU are seen as subjective in this, unless of course you prove that murder is wrong, but you can't prove what's wrong and what's not!
However, if everyone sees that murder is wrong (as it is now) then you will not be seen as a strange one since everyone agrees with you that murder is wrong.
So you see? The MAJORITY, the PEOPLE, actually define what's good and what's wrong, and what's objective and what's subjective
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 07:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry, but when ALMOST EVERYONE want the same something (and think it is "good for the majority"), it is not called authoritarian.
Ok, going back to the subject, I think mvass once said (incredible): "A good democratic system should not infringe on personal freedom and rights", a reply to my "Should others decide for you if you live or die?"
Oh and besides, I do not agree, thus I am not of the same opinion -- so perhaps you should look a bit more to see if "everybody" wants.
And yes, it is called authoritarian, no matter how many monkeys vote for a certain thing (that means, infringing on someone else's rights). A true democracy does not infringe upon personal rights (and it shouldn't be able to), even if it is a vote-based system!
I do not even want to get started on the vote based systems flaws, it is way to many.
Dictatorship(not communisme, communisme is the idea of how the system should work. the System is not how we elect our leaders) tend to have bigger flaws then electing them, but if the rigth person is in charge it could actually turn up good. This does however apply to both of these election systems.
I personaly want the old greek model for election up for running(it is by doing a lottery).
Quote:
Quote:
If you don't like this, go to your cave and live as in the Stone Age.
Seriously, I hate people that are against something but BENEFIT from it everyday (why do you use the computer? I doubt that without any of these scientific experiments we (the humans) would arrive here today)
Seriously, I hate that people are WITH something that DOES NOT INVOLVE THEM and they wouldn't like it.
You know, I live in Stone Age, but you don't live at all -- you die in an experiment. Sound better?
You are a ignorant fool, it is simple. If i fullfilled the conditions needed to be a experiment doll(cure for AIDS, you need to have AIDS), i would simply have become one.
I will donate my body to medical reasearch at some point if needed, but i also want to be incarnated after death. You se, it is very complex, no? If i get AIDS, i will join whatever project that works on a medication for AIDS(taking incomplete medications, etc).
Simply because:
*Benefits others(the results of the medication)
*It can help me on the top of that(another cured of AIDS)
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 07:52 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:54, 04 Jul 2008.
|
@Asheera:You are always getting off the point with your posts.
First regarding the "good" and "evil" in morals: They are just freaking words in a dictionary. It doesn't matter, if a society is 100% evil, I don't see what's wrong in calling itself "evil" (if they use this dictionary). Why should people always call themselves and what they do "good"?? It's like calling someone who is selfish selfless, please
Secondly, if you are truly serious (or are sarcastic), then if 99% people say that scientific FACTS are subjective, then they are? By their definition, I don't care about the word 'objective', I care about the meaning of it -- facts are always objective, no matter how many "sheep" say others.
But if you trust your stupid popularity, why do we even have a discussion? Make a poll and that's the truth. This is a very childish and naive way of argumeneting about a subject. No wonder it can't reach civilized levels.
@del_diablo:Quote:
You are a ignorant fool, it is simple. If i fullfilled the conditions needed to be a experiment doll(cure for AIDS, you need to have AIDS), i would simply have become one.
I will donate my body to medical reasearch at some point if needed, but i also want to be incarnated after death. You se, it is very complex, no? If i get AIDS, i will join whatever project that works on a medication for AIDS(taking incomplete medications, etc).
Simply because:
*Benefits others(the results of the medication)
*It can help me on the top of that(another cured of AIDS)
If it is your will to be a lab-rat, then fine, but what about people that don't want it? Why do you force them? Do you want to be the next Hitler that says if black is white, then it is?
Some people, for example, don't want to take part in experiments. Call them however you want -- they should not be forced in a system that so-called "protects individual rights and freedom". Bleh
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Asheera:You are always getting off the point with your posts.
First regarding the "good" and "evil" in morals: They are just freaking words in a dictionary. It doesn't matter, if a society is 100% evil, I don't see what's wrong in calling itself "evil" (if they use this dictionary). Why should people always call themselves and what they do "good"?? It's like calling someone who is selfish selfless, please
Secondly, if you are truly serious (or are sarcastic), then if 99% people say that scientific FACTS are subjective, then they are? By their definition, I don't care about the word 'objective', I care about the meaning of it -- facts are always objective, no matter how many "sheep" say others.
But if you trust your stupid popularity, why do we even have a discussion? Make a poll and that's the truth. This is a very childish and naive way of argumeneting about a subject. No wonder it can't reach civilized levels.
@del_diablo:Quote:
You are a ignorant fool, it is simple. If i fullfilled the conditions needed to be a experiment doll(cure for AIDS, you need to have AIDS), i would simply have become one.
I will donate my body to medical reasearch at some point if needed, but i also want to be incarnated after death. You se, it is very complex, no? If i get AIDS, i will join whatever project that works on a medication for AIDS(taking incomplete medications, etc).
Simply because:
*Benefits others(the results of the medication)
*It can help me on the top of that(another cured of AIDS)
If it is your will to be a lab-rat, then fine, but what about people that don't want it? Why do you force them? Do you want to be the next Hitler that says if black is white, then it is?
Some people, for example, don't want to take part in experiments. Call them however you want -- they should not be forced in a system that so-called "protects individual rights and freedom". Bleh
Ok, screw quote wars............
My point about the prisoners on the death row is:
*They are judged to be killed
*Can they be used to someting usefull, even in death?
If they are to be killed because of their crimes, do they have any human rigths? Do "Normal norms" follow them?
PS: you say religion, but your argument is really "christian". I do not remember the islamic stance on the subject, so it is only 1 religion at the moment.
NB: i am a buddhist.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think mvass once said (incredible): "A good democratic system should not infringe on personal freedom and rights", a reply to my "Should others decide for you if you live or die?"
Yes, that's true. Which is why you can't decide for 100 people to die just so 1 person can live.
Quote:
There are two cases of "life", and you forgot to tell which one you're referring to
But if there is one case of life that is positive, and one that is negative, does that not mean that life as a whole is not inherently negative?
Quote:
One is inherently negative
No, it may be situationally negative, but not inherently negative.
Quote:
You make a big room and create a clone that CANNOT MOVE there. The room, every 5 seconds, releases a gas that hurts.
You have the right to throw the clone out. It is not against the clone's will to exist, since when he was created, he had no will either way.
Quote:
Should we make exceptions when to infringe upon others' rights?
No, but here people's rights are going to be infringed anyway: either the rights of 100 or the right of 1.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:06 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 20:08, 04 Jul 2008.
|
@Death:
I'm getting off the point with my posts? Is is me who brought the "words in a dictionary" in discussion? I don't think so; it was YOU. What I said HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WORDS!
Who do you think you are to define what's "good" (and I don't mean the word!) and what's not? Can you tell me how do you know that murder is WRONG? (again, I don't mean the word!)
Please, re-read mvass' first post in Moral Philosophy thread, and see how GOOD and EVIL were defined. BY HUMANS. BY MAJORITY. Get it?
Now YOU try to define GOOD and EVIL. And don't just say: stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, compassion is GOOD, etc. because that's subjective. GOOD and EVIL are subjective and are NOT absolute as you say. I don't care if you, for example, consider compassion GOOD, do you think this is not subjective and that this is the TRUE GOOD? Just because you say so? Please...
A quote from your post in the Moral Philosophy thread:Quote:
What does good mean? Good by the purest of definitions, implies that you need not seek any kind of personal gain over others'.
Purest definitions? It is YOU who defined GOOD like that, therefore it's subjective. What makes you think this is the REAL definition of GOOD?
Simple. Good means what the PEOPLE (the MAJORITY) find GOOD, since the PEOPLE talk about GOOD. I don't think there is somewhere written by the cosmos what's GOOD and what's not.
And please don't bring religion in this discussion, since not everybody believes in God.
The point is, if everybody considers GOOD to kill that person and prevent a nuclear bomb explode, then it is GOOD.
And remember, in this post, GOOD doesn't mean the word!
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, that's true. Which is why you can't decide for 100 people to die just so 1 person can live.
And the other way around?
Quote:
But if there is one case of life that is positive, and one that is negative, does that not mean that life as a whole is not inherently negative?
Depending on which life you mean. There are two different 'kinds' of life, again, life by itself can't be classified inherently positive or negative -- you need to take a look at the kind of life it is.
Quote:
You have the right to throw the clone out. It is not against the clone's will to exist, since when he was created, he had no will either way.
Ah, but you see you created it (purpose) to not be able to get out, and you want to kill it thus. That is the purpose you created it, but you now find a 'justifiable' or a 'hole' in the law to get out.
Quote:
No, but here people's rights are going to be infringed anyway: either the rights of 100 or the right of 1.
The very important difference is that the respective individual (1 person) does not infringe upon the rights of others, so he should not be punished (in a way), that is, he does not violate any rights, don't violate his either, unless you want to be accused.
What if I tell the police that I killed John Smith because he was going to call for aliens and destroy the Earth? Great, now I know I'll have this excuse to justify my killings...
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There are two different 'kinds' of life, again, life by itself can't be classified inherently positive or negative -- you need to take a look at the kind of life it is.
No. There is only one kind of life. What you say about two kinds of life is purely your opinion and thus it does not mean that it is correct.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:14 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:31, 04 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
I'm getting off the point with my posts? Is is me who brought the "words in a dictionary" in discussion? I don't think so; it was YOU. What I said HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WORDS!
No but we're getting into the moral philosophy thread
Quote:
Who do you think you are to define what's "good" (and I don't mean the word!) and what's not? Can you tell me how do you know that murder is WRONG? (again, I don't mean the word!)
Plain and simple, it IS NOT. For something to be "wrong" it must not work -- murder 'works' obviously. The fact that it is punished is a whole different matter.
Murder is WRONG just because we used that name. If I said murder is GOOD (and you still get punished) it wouldn't change a bit.
Quote:
Please, re-read mvass' first post in Moral Philosophy thread, and see how GOOD and EVIL were defined. BY HUMANS. BY MAJORITY. Get it?
If you haven't bothered to read my posts (in that thread) I am not in any way convinced to re-read that, because you see, I am not someone that goes by the majority. So no, I won't "Get it"
Quote:
Now YOU try to define GOOD and EVIL. And don't just say: stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, compassion is GOOD, etc. because that's subjective. GOOD and EVIL are subjective and are NOT absolute as you say. I don't care if you, for example, consider compassion GOOD, do you think this is not subjective and that this is the TRUE GOOD? Just because you say so? Please...
You know something? Let's just throw the damn words together, and use the following substitutes:
1) Good = selfless
2) Evil = selfish and tyrant and feasting upon others' freedom
3) Neutral = ignorant
4) blabla
In case you dispute the above definitions too, then I'll find a dictionary.
Quote:
Purest definitions? It is YOU who defined GOOD like that, therefore it's subjective. What makes you think this is the REAL definition of GOOD?
It's my definition (and the Bible's) -- just a dictionary. Your "good" on the other hand, has no definition because it is subjective.
Quote:
And please don't bring religion in this discussion, since not everybody believes in God.
And don't bring the majority into discussion, since not everybody believes in the truth of popularity.
Quote:
The point is, if everybody considers GOOD to kill that person and prevent a nuclear bomb explode, then it is GOOD.
But it is also authoritarian, and infringes on his rights.
Quote:
And remember, in this post, GOOD doesn't mean the word!
There is absolutely no "meaning" for good. Is it "pleasure"? Is it "benefit"?
So yes, your post only contained the word Good. And don't use capitals that much, I can read, just because I don't agree with you (because you say so "Get it") doesn't mean I didn't read it.
Quote:
No. There is only one kind of life. What you say about two kinds of life is purely your opinion and thus it does not mean that it is correct.
You are obsessed with this kind of opinions, but you use your statements as if yours are valid and not opinions.
Let me tell you something. Find the purpose of a life that is to be aborted. Then find the purpose of a gun. Really it's not that subjective, is it?
I'm truly sorry if I am not a sheep to agree with the majority and call black white, because they say so. Discussions are not about popularity.
EDIT: For the record, to brush up on your vocabulary: Objectivity
From the article:Quote:
For instance, it is true always and everywhere that '2 and 2 make 4'. A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times, places or people.
Basically are you saying that if everyone claims that the Earth is flat, then it is (even if it isn't for example!)?? Is THAT what you call objective?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But it is also authoritarian, and infringes on his rights.
Oh yeah, I forgot: If you want to stop a criminal that WILL kill someone (didn't kill yet, he will kill in the next minute) you are authoritarian since you infringe on his rights?
You see, everyone else agrees that the criminal will do a wrong thing and that it is right to stop him, and thus it will be GOOD to stop him!
Quote:
It's my definition (and the Bible's)
Obviously, it's purely subjective, as all definitions of GOOD and EVIL are subjective, and thus it does not mean yours is correct.
And besides, if they are subjective and you seem to understand this, then you again contradict yourself, as you said in the Moral Philosophy thread:Quote:
Before you start claiming that good and evil are subjective, let me tell you up front they are very precisely defined, no ambiguity, and I will explain below.
Precisely defined? By who? By you? By the Bible? Please, they are SUBJECTIVE, and are NOT precisely defined.
So by YOUR definition, killing that person is WRONG. But by MY (and others) definition, killing that person is GOOD. What makes you think YOUR definition is better than mine? At least I consider mine better because 99% of the PEOPLE, the ones that make up the definitions of GOOD and EVIL, agree with me!
I'm just tired of you saying that "popularity is not the way". But what is? Your definitions are the way? You have absolutely NOTHING more than me to prove that your definition is better, at least I have 99% of the population by my side.
So again, why should we listen to you? What makes you special in that you imply that 99% of the people are wrong and you are right, in something that is completely subjective and it will always be?
Quote:
Let me tell you something. Find the purpose of a life that is to be aborted.
That life is not to be aborted. I just let the fetus do everything it needs alone, it's not my problem it can't feed itself.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh yeah, I forgot: If you want to stop a criminal that WILL kill someone (didn't kill yet, he will kill in the next minute) you are authoritarian since you infringe on his rights?
Obviously you can't charge him for murder if he didn't commit it, or what are you talking about? Even in the current system! You can only accuse him of assault (if he assaulted, if not then you cannot).
Quote:
You see, everyone else agrees that the criminal will do a wrong thing and that it is right to stop him, and thus it will be GOOD to stop him!
Nazism works well when everyone (I assume in the current nation) says Jews are EVIL (or whatever)
Quote:
Obviously, it's purely subjective, as all definitions of GOOD and EVIL are subjective, and thus it does not mean yours is correct.
Sorry to say, but the Bible once constituted the "majority" thus it is objective. Objectivity can't change (read the wiki link I posted). Thus it is objective.
Quote:
And besides, if they are subjective and you seem to understand this, then you again contradict yourself, as you said in the Moral Philosophy thread:Quote:
Before you start claiming that good and evil are subjective, let me tell you up front they are very precisely defined, no ambiguity, and I will explain below.
Precisely defined? By who? By you? By the Bible? Please, they are SUBJECTIVE, and are NOT precisely defined.
You know something, call them good2 and evil2, or "g00d" and "ev1l". These are not defined yet, so they are "objective" when I talk about them.
Why are they objective? Because they are not someone's preferences. I'm talking about the "meaning" of them (not the word). Being selfish is not defined, for example, by preferences (subjective).
Quote:
So by YOUR definition, killing that person is WRONG. But by MY (and others) definition, killing that person is GOOD. What makes you think YOUR definition is better than mine? At least I consider mine better because 99% of the PEOPLE, the ones that make up the definitions of GOOD and EVIL, agree with me!
Again, I explained you about WRONG and whatever before, are you going to keep on your claims and ignore my explanations?
Quote:
I'm just tired of you saying that "popularity is not the way". But what is? Your definitions are the way? You have absolutely NOTHING more than me to prove that your definition is better, at least I have 99% of the population by my side.
There's a thing called equality, you know. If you don't want your rights infringed, then YOU DON'T INFRINGE THEM YOURSELF. This is objective, it's no one's preferences. It's called a "free" system, you know?
Let me tell you up front that making exceptions is subjective. Why am I objective in this context? Because I do not favor and do not use my preferences -- I simply state everyone should be the same, thus no exceptions and a free system that does not infringe upon rights of people.
Your system, on the other hand, is authoritarian or totalitarian. Because it makes exceptions based on the majority's preferences.
Quote:
That life is not to be aborted. I just let the fetus do everything it needs alone, it's not my problem it can't feed itself.
It is your problem because you brought him in that place -- he would've lived better somewhere else, so yes it is your problem.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:42 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 20:53, 04 Jul 2008.
|
@Death: I'll only point on a little fact and then I don't think it's necessary to discuss the others as well, since your system is just completely messed up with BIG FLAWS
Quote:
Obviously you can't charge him for murder if he didn't commit it, or what are you talking about? Even in the current system! You can only accuse him of assault (if he assaulted, if not then you cannot).
So you're saying that you CAN'T use self-defense and hurt someone, since that someone didn't kill you? Forgive me but I don't like to live in your flawed system
And forget about assault. If someone wants to kill you, they'll do it instantly and you WON'T be assaulted. So again, you say that you can't use self-defense and hurt someone since that someone didn't assault/kill you?
Quote:
Sorry to say, but the Bible once constituted the "majority"
Where did you get this idea anyway?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:50 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:36, 04 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
I'll only point on a little fact and then I don't think it's necessary to discuss the others as well, since your system is just completely messed up with BIG FLAWS
Instead of claiming that just post examples and be sure to add my "preferences" (like favoring a group over the other) since you claim it's subjective.
What shocked me is that you dare to call me an authoritarian in this respect. Did you even read the wiki article, or is that flawed as well?
This discussion has degenerated. If you look into the first few pages, you'll see people talking civilized. But no wonder, if you'll keep on that logic, then whatever I do is subjective -- even if I offer FACTS.
Why do you even care to discuss if you only listen to the majority of monkeys? Make a poll.
Quote:
So you're saying that you CAN'T use self-defense and hurt someone, since that someone didn't kill you? Forgive me but I don't like to live in your flawed system
No I did not say that. Can you please be so kind to post a quote where I said that?
I said that you can't charge him for murder but you can charge him for assault, if he has done it. Yes, it may sound bad from your subjective preferences, but you can't charge him for something he hasn't done -- if he has assaulted you then of course you can use self-defense. But still you can't charge him for murder, even if he would otherwise do it 
Quote:
And forget about assault. If someone wants to kill you, they'll do it instantly and you WON'T be assaulted. So again, you say that you can't use self-defense and hurt someone since that someone didn't assault/kill you?
Let me tell you something. If he does in instantly (I assume without breaking your property), but you somehow know that (let's say you are a psychic), then in the court at least, you can absolutely not use this excuse without any evidence what so ever -- it'll be like your word against his word. No amount of "witnesses" will be able to help you -- the guy did not kill you so thus there is nothing they could have "witnessed" (apart from you beating him and calling it 'self-defense').
The law doesn't work that way, at least in democratic countries, even the powerful people in the government can "lose a trial" because it's not based on propaganda or majority, it's based on FACTS. What fact do you have that he was going to kill you? (supposing you didn't know him before, otherwise hate could be a reason).
I suggest you speak to a lawyer and see how things are done. Simply, you can't charge someone for something he has not done
EDIT: Just a question: do you think that "religious crusades" (for example) are ok if the majority (that means >50%) think that way? 
If the world had 51% nazi people, would it be ok to murder jews and justified?
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry to say, but the Bible once constituted the "majority"
Where did you get this idea anyway?
From history
Every atheist will agree with me (I'm not an atheist but you get the point).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 08:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And the other way around?
I don't know what it's like from your point of view, but I think that 100>1.
Quote:
life by itself can't be classified inherently positive or negative
You seemed to have no problem doing that earlier.
Quote:
Ah, but you see you created it (purpose) to not be able to get out, and you want to kill it thus.
I'm not the one killing it. It dies by itself. If I were to physically cause it to be unable to life, then I'd be killing it.
Quote:
The very important difference is that the respective individual (1 person) does not infringe upon the rights of others, so he should not be punished (in a way), that is, he does not violate any rights, don't violate his either, unless you want to be accused.
Okay, then, look at it this way. There is a fork in a train track. There are 100 people tied to the tracks on one side, and one person tied to the tracks on the other side. You don't know any of the people on either side, and you can't untie any of them, and you can't get help. A train is coming, and can't stop. With the way the switch is now, the train will run over 100 people. You, however, can flip the switch, thus diverting the train to the other tracks, and only runnning over one person. Would you do so?
Quote:
1) Good = selfless
selfless = nonexistant
Quote:
2) Evil = selfish and tyrant and feasting upon others' freedom
selfish = everybody
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 09:07 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:07, 04 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
I don't know what it's like from your point of view, but I think that 100>1.
So? Does that give you the right to infringe on his rights?
Quote:
You seemed to have no problem doing that earlier.
I meant that there is no such thing as "life" without classifying it into either a "negative" one or a "positive" one.
Quote:
I'm not the one killing it.
But you are the one who created it and put it in that situation. Read carefully.
Quote:
Okay, then, look at it this way. There is a fork in a train track. There are 100 people tied to the tracks on one side, and one person tied to the tracks on the other side. You don't know any of the people on either side, and you can't untie any of them, and you can't get help. A train is coming, and can't stop. With the way the switch is now, the train will run over 100 people. You, however, can flip the switch, thus diverting the train to the other tracks, and only runnning over one person. Would you do so?
Whether or not I would do it is irrelevant (my opinion). Suffice to say that I can be charged for flipping the switch. For the death of the guy, I don't know, because he can't sue me, but his family can (if they are not "understandable"). I will accept the consequences if I flip the switch. (most however will call it an 'accident' though).
Question: would you do it if you were tied in the other side? Would you WANT someone else to do it?
You can't have democracy and freedom of rights when you constantly break them for what you think is "good".
Like the saying: "You can't have peace when you're preparing for war"
Quote:
Quote:
1) Good = selfless
selfless = nonexistant
Quote:
2) Evil = selfish and tyrant and feasting upon others' freedom
selfish = everybody
Wait wait wait, it's not black and white -- depends how "selfish" they are obviously, it's like 0% to 100%
I don't want to repeat the stuff I wrote in the Moral Philosophy thread, thanks.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 09:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Does that give you the right to infringe on his rights?
If I was absolutely sure that it would prevent 100 others from having their rights violated (and if everyone agreed with me in that).
Quote:
I meant that there is no such thing as "life" without classifying it into either a "negative" one or a "positive" one.
But if you can classify it into either, that means that it's not inherently negative.
Quote:
But you are the one who created it and put it in that situation.
But it had no will otherwise. Is it against the will of your keyboard for you to be typing on it? Remember that non-living things don't have a will.
Quote:
Whether or not I would do it is irrelevant (my opinion).
Would you do it or not?
Quote:
Suffice to say that I can be charged for flipping the switch.
But isn't the law subjective?
Quote:
Question: would you do it if you were tied in the other side? Would you WANT someone else to do it?
No, of course not. But when you have 1 person clamoring to live at the expense of the lives of 100 others, and then you have 100 people clamoring to live at the expense of 1 other, it's hard to justify listening to 1 over 100. (If all other conditions are equal.)
Quote:
Wait wait wait, it's not black and white -- depends how "selfish" they are obviously, it's like 0% to 100%
All action is in one's own self interest. In fact, we need new words for this. x = selfishness at the expense of others, and y = selfishness without causing others harm.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
