|
|
espen15
Famous Hero
|
posted July 17, 2008 12:47 PM |
|
|
|
i don´t belive those alien stories until i haven´t seen ufo, global warning isn´t because of human activity its evolution progress human will affect it only little bit.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 01:40 PM |
|
|
Xerox:
Quote:
They are made by the government not society -.-
You know that in some countries the governments care about the ftae of our world?
What's "ftae"? And nature's so-called "rights" are made by the government. That's why they're not really rights, but restrictions.
Quote:
Its a fact that humans are the most evil race in this solar system
Prove it.
Quote:
We are the reasons for several speices getting exterminated EVERY DAY. I dont call that very good.
But does that hurt other humans? No, in most cases, it doesn't.
Quote:
Humans are like viruses. When we have destroyed this planet then we will move on to another and devaste it, and then another, and another and another untill we find some aliens that kills us
Humans are like no other being. If/when we have exhausted the Earth's ability to sustain us, we will expand to other planets, and another and another, for that shows that we are both resilient and superior.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 02:29 PM |
|
|
@TitaniumAlloy:Quote:
Quote:
Take aliens for example. They might have some effect on our planet (maybe even admiring it or CREATING it), and they wouldn't want us to disturb it, even though they are peaceful and thus do not apply force to stop us (and even in such a case, it would cause more destruction!)
What has this got to do with the sentience of nature?
Ok man, let's suppose that YOU are some kind of super-alien (sort of), and you created the Earth... then some other alien comes and puts humans in there. You say, it's ok, they're peaceful at first. Then, the humans start to devastate what you created (nature). Or maybe you as the alien much more superior than humans, know that your creation is "sentient" but humans can't understand that (or maybe they will 5000 years after they polluted the Planet, you know how they say, what's done is done, you can't reverse the process just because you were DUMB and did not know that 5000 years ago).
I know you'll say: If I am such a powerful alien, then I would destroy the humans. But not everything thinks of force, maybe you are a peaceful alien and destroying humans requires force, not to mention it would probably require devastation. You can't fix destruction with destruction, at least not if you are a peaceful alien.
@mvassilev:Quote:
Rights only apply to human society, since they're the ones who made them in the first place. "Nature's rights" makes as much sense as "lizards' computers". 
You must be joking, right? Look it's very easy to add rights to animals, yes we humans "made up" those rights, but we can add them to animals. Rights are not inherent to anyone, thus your view is merely just that... your view, biased obviously.
Do you know why I keep claiming that my view is better? Because it doesn't have: 1) exceptions
2) favoritism
3) biased towards a group (human society)
Just because we, humans, can make rights doesn't mean we have to do it your way, you somehow imply it as if it is a fact. Why can't we make rights to animals? In fact, let's make it philosophical, and apply it to life, or to nature... since we're a part of it
Quote:
Quote:
Who gave them any property hmmm?
If the property is owned by no one, the first one to get it owns it.
King of the Hill? Survival of the Fittest? You see, maybe we are in nature's property (animals have "territories" for example), we can just simply break them (like we did), but why not break human properties hmm?? because you say so? because you say humans deserve to keep what they "got", while nature/animals don't??
Tell me something, after the first man gets "all the land" and says it's his property, what has the one after him (born after) done to be in his property?? I mean, why could the first one just claim simply "This is my land", while the one after him has to obey? The first one didn't obey nature, why should the human obey the other human's property? You know, opportunity should be equal to everyone. But ok, since it's only some "humans" who decide what's property and what's not (for example, someone born after a single person claimed all land as his, cannot decide what's property, right?? but the first person can, even though evolutionally, monkeys could have before). Obviously, if we break the monkeys' property we can then make our own, but who said that the second human couldn't break the first one's property just as easily? This is not a black and white game in case you have noticed. I don't care what the people before me decided to be their property, that is not a philosophical argument, that's just the primitive "survival of the fittest" scheme, where humans simply were better than animals. Yuck 
Quote:
But why would you have doubts?
Because I'm not narrow-minded to think that only the human way of "sentience" is available in the world. I'm also not arrogant and ignorant enough to think that other creatures can't feel -- even if they can't feel the same as we do, that DOES NOT mean that they can be abused however we see fit, just because they're different.
Quote:
Quote:
I meant: what have rights got to do with justifying an action?
Well, if that didn't answer your question, maybe I just don't understand it correctly. What do you mean by "justifying an action"?
Is killing humans ok, philosophically speaking, not politically (society)? Is killing actually any being ok?
Example: if we see Mars populated by aliens, and these aliens are sentient, but live peacefully and are not obsessed with possessions or capitalism (in short, they don't want to talk to us nor trade anything)... Do you think it's ok to kill them, because they are not "good" for our society in any way? If you think that it's ok, then I'm sorry you feel that way, and I'm beginning to think Moonlith is kinda right about you.
Quote:
Quote:
how can a broken rock affect the scheme of things anyway?
You've disturbed nature, no?
Ehm, how exactly? No "reaction" took place, nothing suffered, and the rock is quantitatively still in the Earth (two pieces in different places = one piece somewhere). Unless of course the rock had some artistical or "historical" value, then you don't disturb it with these.
I like how you always go to an extreme example that doesn't even work, to prove your point, when you can't do it on a reasonable level (if you think pollution = breaking a rock, then I don't think there's anything left to discuss).
Quote:
You can't talk about "disturbing" nature, since it doesn't have any rights.
Humans don't have any rights either...
Wait, actually they do -- some dumbass decided that we have rights and nature not... hmm Is it measurable? Is it objective?
Don't get me wrong, I like arguments that have some philosophical basis (not necessarily scientifical) not just how you respond with "It doesn't have rights" because you say so? That's like saying "Humans have a soul! Nature has too! You murderer"
What do you reply then? "Prove it" or "Show me evidence"?? Well I can ask you the same about nature's rights -- since you have no arguments whatsoever apart from simply stating that without any backup at all.
Quote:
"I know it is so. I have said that it is so. Therefore it is so." Right? You say that they aren't, I say that they are. If you are violating someone's rights, then the action is wrong. If not, then it's not. And rights do not come from laws; laws come from rights, but are often twisted in the process.
Do you even understand philosophy geesh 
You can't just make "statements" like "nature doesn't have rights" and dare to call that a philosophical approach? Dude, you have to backup with reasonable suggestions as to why, and in fact you also have to counter what I said about "treating everything the same", that is:
1) no exceptions
2) no favoritism
3) no biased views
Which is, IMO, far better than what you propose, simply because your view is more "communistic" like where exceptions are everywhere to mark up the holes.
Quote:
I love all these little counterculture environmentalist misanthropes. "Humans are evil! Humans are evil!" Guess what? You're human.
Guess what? You knew what he said (talking about general human society), but you still had to respond with that useless piece of text.
Quote:
What's "ftae"? And nature's so-called "rights" are made by the government. That's why they're not really rights, but restrictions.
Wow just WOW.. Do you think YOUR IDEA of rights is better? What makes you think your idea of rights is divine or objective or blabla, something which the government doesn't have??? Same thing, different opinions, please do not claim that yours is better, just because you love the human society and screw anything that doesn't harm it 
Quote:
Quote:
Its a fact that humans are the most evil race in this solar system
Prove it.
We have done so many times, but you need to open your eyes to see the proof, we can't put it in your thoughts just like that
Quote:
Quote:
We are the reasons for several speices getting exterminated EVERY DAY. I dont call that very good.
But does that hurt other humans? No, in most cases, it doesn't.
SO WHAT? Do you think your stupid model of human society rights is any better?? I'd like arguments please.
I have tons of arguments such as "no exceptions" and "no favoritism" and all that -- these are actually virtues of science (even though right now we're not talking about science).
I like how you bash everyone using Biblical quotes while your religion (and that is, your view human society) has no problem and you use your religious arguments here as if they are a fact of some sort. Truly lovely how you ask someone else to prove his religious claims, but you don't prove your "rights" claims (stating that the government has "restriction" of rights? lol what's a right if not by the government? ah yes, your religion about "benefiting the society", bleh).
Quote:
Quote:
Humans are like viruses. When we have destroyed this planet then we will move on to another and devaste it, and then another, and another and another untill we find some aliens that kills us
Humans are like no other being. If/when we have exhausted the Earth's ability to sustain us, we will expand to other planets, and another and another, for that shows that we are both resilient and superior.
Tell me something, did you read any books on the subject (humans = virus)? Please, read them with an open-mind, not in your religious abilities, for you seem like some kind of extremist. I am not allowed to use "soul" arguments, but you are allowed to use your (remember some governments disagree for example) subjective definition of "rights"???
Why is my definition of rights more objective? Again, because it has no exceptions, no favoritism, and no biased views... These qualify more as objectiveness, you know, therefore my proposal is more objective than yours. Period.
Also I'd like to know as you have not responded. Please counter the argument "Humans are viruses" (please take it philosophical, not biological).
____________
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 17, 2008 02:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Its a fact that humans are the most evil race in this solar system
Prove it.
Actually, he doesn't need to. You took care of it with:Quote:
Quote:
We are the reasons for several speices getting exterminated EVERY DAY. I dont call that very good.
But does that hurt other humans? No, in most cases, it doesn't.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 03:39 PM |
|
|
Wait, isn't this thread supposed to be about global warming?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 04:07 PM |
|
|
Nah this is much more intersting. You hear about global warming every day anyway and not about evil guys that wants to kill all speices in the whole universe to survive
Also the "ftae" it was a misspelling lol. I meant to write "Some governemts care about the world" or something like that.
Humans and other animals are the only living creatures in this solar system. Do you seriously think that there are aliens on Mars?
The planet is not the humans property. Its natures property and we are a part of it.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 04:46 PM |
|
|
I know some people try to make nature anthropomorphic and worship it as some weird kind of god, that owns the planet and us.. But what is the point? It's like worshiping mathematic or the pi number. The "nature" is nothing else than a set of physical laws that make the fauna and flora going.
The planet is our property since we decide what happens here anyway. It's pitiful what some of us do with it, but that doesn't change the fact that we are the only rulers here. Not gravity, nature, or anything else.
While TitaniumAlloy may be irritating in his my-point-of-view-is-superior-to-all-other behavior, he is right here, imho ofc I don't understand what is the point of humans trying to ridicule their own kind. Extreme theories like "we are the virus" are.. well, extreme to a point of being silly. I don't understand people who think so - they are part of the so called "virus" and saying such things will not change it. What gives you the right to put yourself above your own kind and threat them like evil and stupid lesser beings, guys? It's not right. And why do you try to side with "nature", which is nothing else than a set of physical laws that makes the eco system work? It's like you tried to ally with light or gravity 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 05:05 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
You must be joking, right? Look it's very easy to add rights to animals, yes we humans "made up" those rights, but we can add them to animals.
But the purpose of rights is to protect individuals, and individuals are part of society. Animals clearly aren't part of society.
Quote:
Do you know why I keep claiming that my view is better? Because it doesn't have: 1) exceptions
2) favoritism
3) biased towards a group (human society)
My view doesn't have exceptions, favoritism, or bias either. Look, human society created rights to protect itself from the aberrant actions of individuals. But there is no reason to extend those rights to animals; i.e. we won't be better off for it (except emotionally, but that's a different subject). That is, animals won't respect our rights even if we respect theirs. If we stop eating sharks, that doesn't mean that sharks will stop eating us.
Quote:
You see, maybe we are in nature's property (animals have "territories" for example), we can just simply break them (like we did), but why not break human properties hmm??
Because we ourselves are humans. Why would we damage ourselves?
Quote:
who said that the second human couldn't break the first one's property just as easily?
Because we as humans have to respect other humans and treat them with equal human rights. That is, if the situation were reversed, the second human wouldn't want the first human to take his property away from him! That's the whole basis of the social contract.
Quote:
Because I'm not narrow-minded to think that only the human way of "sentience" is available in the world.
Well, I must simply disagree.
Quote:
Is killing humans ok, philosophically speaking, not politically (society)? Is killing actually any being ok?
What are you talking about? There is nothing that is inherently right or wrong. To determine if an action is good or not, you have to look at the effects it has. If it helps society and the person that is performing it, then it's good. If it hurts society, then it's evil. But if there was only one man on Earth, nothing he would do could be considered good or evil (unless he somehow formed a symbiotic society with some animals).
Quote:
Do you think it's ok to kill them, because they are not "good" for our society in any way?
No, because this is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
Quote:
if you think pollution = breaking a rock, then I don't think there's anything left to discuss
Breaking a rock is merely distrubing nature. Pollution is also disturbing nature. But the difference is critical: pollution hurts nature and humans, and humans need nature (sort of) to survive. On the other hand, breaking a rock isn't going to shake the world.
Quote:
Is it measurable? Is it objective?
The non-aggression principle is objective.
Quote:
You can't just make "statements" like "nature doesn't have rights" and dare to call that a philosophical approach? Dude, you have to backup with reasonable suggestions as to why
All right, I'll explain why. Why do humans need rights? Because they are necessary. Why? Look at the situation without rights, then. Humans would be killing each other and taking each other's stuff forcefully. Clearly, that is not a desirable situation. That is why society exists. Society is a group of individuals. They have decided that it would be in all of their self-interest to limit each other's actions to where they wouldn't be able to seize stuff from others and kill them. This was perfectly in accordance with self-interest. But with nature, it doesn't work that way. First, nature isn't an individual. Second, nature can agree to no social contracts. We can't make nature stop earthquakes, landslides, and hurricanes simply by saying that we won't take from it. (Whether we can talk about "taking from nature" is doubtful in itself, since nature can't own property.) That is why we have to control nature.
Quote:
What makes you think your idea of rights is divine or objective or blabla, something which the government doesn't have???
Because you have yet to convince me otherwise.
Quote:
Why is my definition of rights more objective?
My definition of rights is objective too.
Quote:
Please counter the argument "Humans are viruses"
Several reasons:
1. We are capable of much more complex activities.
2. We are sentinent.
3. We can deal and reason with other members of our species.
4. We do not simply live to reproduce.
5. We are alive; viruses are questionable in that regard.
6. We can look after our long-term self-interest, not just short-term.
Xerox:
Quote:
You hear about global warming every day anyway and not about evil guys that wants to kill all speices in the whole universe to survive
If it's between me or them, I'd pick me every time.
Quote:
The planet is not the humans property. Its natures property and we are a part of it.
How can nature own property? How can abstract things own property?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 05:06 PM |
|
|
Why do you think people worship nature as a god?
I dont think anyone here thinks that
People just try to protect nature and preserve whats left of it for future generations.
Just think +100 years in the future if we didnt do anything now.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 05:16 PM |
|
|
Well, a lot of people seems to worship the nature. Maybe not on this forum, but if you've checked similar discussions on other forums, you'd find a lot of such people, of that I am sure. They speak about nature as of a god that rules the world. But how can - as mvass called them - abstract things rule the world?
and 100+ years isn't enough to inflict damage beyond our world's abilities to recover, I think. Not if we keep doing it the way we do it right now - while there is a lot of negative effects of some of humanity's poorer decisions, the world is still in relatively good shape. The biggest problem is the overpopulation - more people needs bigger towns, less wilderness, more energy. So more and more of the planet is converted into fields of concrete.
Negative birth rate, aside from horrible economical effects, is not THAT bad, actually
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 05:19 PM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 05:27 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:28, 17 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
But the purpose of rights is to protect individuals, and individuals are part of society. Animals clearly aren't part of society.
That's not the purpose of rights The purpose of "rights" is to differentiate between tyrant species (primitive) and evolved species (wise). And I mean my definition of rights, not yours.
Quote:
My view doesn't have exceptions, favoritism, or bias either. Look, human society created rights to protect itself from the aberrant actions of individuals. But there is no reason to extend those rights to animals; i.e. we won't be better off for it (except emotionally, but that's a different subject). That is, animals won't respect our rights even if we respect theirs. If we stop eating sharks, that doesn't mean that sharks will stop eating us.
We can suppress our instincts, so we should know better, unless you think of yourself as a kind of primitive species. Here's something nice:
The strong need to protect the weak -- otherwise, they will be tyrants (read that definition), because "neutralness" can hardly exist in such a case, trust me. You seem to advocate the human tyrants. You are lucky that aliens are peaceful and understandable and enlightened enough to not destroy people like you, who think they don't deserve to live if they don't help the "human" society.
Quote:
Quote:
You see, maybe we are in nature's property (animals have "territories" for example), we can just simply break them (like we did), but why not break human properties hmm??
Because we ourselves are humans. Why would we damage ourselves?
Whoa, now that's something. I mean, you are materialistic, but somehow think that "humans" have a goal. Why should you damage others?? Why not, it benefits you (and let's say you won't get caught). That's your materialistic view, why the hell do you care for the "human society" as a whole?
Quote:
Because we as humans have to respect other humans and treat them with equal human rights. That is, if the situation were reversed, the second human wouldn't want the first human to take his property away from him! That's the whole basis of the social contract.
I don't think so. The second human is unfortunate enough to live after the first one. Just as the first one claimed that territory without any basis, so can the one following -- heck, why should the second one be restricted compared to the first one? Most people would not allow that at such a stage.
Quote:
Quote:
Because I'm not narrow-minded to think that only the human way of "sentience" is available in the world.
Well, I must simply disagree.
"They [the aliens] must be rational, and therefore understandable."
"Why?"
"Well - because they’re sentient."
"And that means."
"Well - that they’re rational."
"A good circular definition, absolutely meaningless. Try and give me any definition of ‘rational’ or ‘sentient’ that boils down to anything other than ‘acts like a human’."
Quote:
What are you talking about? There is nothing that is inherently right or wrong. To determine if an action is good or not, you have to look at the effects it has. If it helps society and the person that is performing it, then it's good. If it hurts society, then it's evil. But if there was only one man on Earth, nothing he would do could be considered good or evil (unless he somehow formed a symbiotic society with some animals).
Again and again I must show why your definition of "right" and "wrong" is much worse than mine. You see, yours doesn't work in all cases (where there is no society, or in alien examples), mine does. I'm looking at the effects it has. We pollute -- we are evil. Period.
You know, even though this is not science, in science a theory that works in more cases than another one is chosen as the "better" one. So here too, since my "theory" about good/evil works in ALL cases, even when no society exists. (also read the D&D alignments for a change would you? you know why? because in those games, there are a lot more races than just "humans", it's why you can't use that flawed theory of yours)
Seriously the society good/evil is the worst definition I ever heard about these two words.
Quote:
Quote:
Do you think it's ok to kill them, because they are not "good" for our society in any way?
No, because this is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
What are you talking about? Let's say that on Mars, there are aliens there. Or let's name the "animals" aliens, ok?
Thus, it's wrong to kill animals because of the non-aggression principle.
It's similar to my example. Aliens on Mars are peaceful and want to live there, without helping our society in any way (that is, they don't like materialistic views, don't trade and blabla). Similar to animals, but let's say they are intelligent and wise (something which humans lack I see).
Non-aggression principle? Then it applies to animals and nature as well
Quote:
Breaking a rock is merely distrubing nature. Pollution is also disturbing nature. But the difference is critical: pollution hurts nature and humans, and humans need nature (sort of) to survive. On the other hand, breaking a rock isn't going to shake the world.
I don't know what you mean by "shake" the world but the rock analogy doesn't apply. A rock doesn't "break" any balance, nature doesn't even need to "recover" from that, it just won't need to. Now, moving the Earth into the Sun, for example, would be different. Or converting all the matter in energy and releasing it in Outer Space.. that would be a "disturbing" factor.
Quote:
The non-aggression principle is objective.
So why do we kill animals? If it applies only to humans, sorry then it can't be, since it has favoritism
Quote:
All right, I'll explain why. Why do humans need rights? Because they are necessary. Why? Look at the situation without rights, then. Humans would be killing each other and taking each other's stuff forcefully. Clearly, that is not a desirable situation. That is why society exists. Society is a group of individuals. They have decided that it would be in all of their self-interest to limit each other's actions to where they wouldn't be able to seize stuff from others and kill them. This was perfectly in accordance with self-interest. But with nature, it doesn't work that way. First, nature isn't an individual. Second, nature can agree to no social contracts. We can't make nature stop earthquakes, landslides, and hurricanes simply by saying that we won't take from it. (Whether we can talk about "taking from nature" is doubtful in itself, since nature can't own property.) That is why we have to control nature.
You seem to describe above some human "species" that I am not part of, seriously. What you described above seems like a new species, from my perspective -- Moonlith was right it seems. Some people are the way you describe, some not. Like the cancer. There could be a few 'good' cells but it seems most are cancer cells
Quote:
Quote:
What makes you think your idea of rights is divine or objective or blabla, something which the government doesn't have???
Because you have yet to convince me otherwise.
I don't care, stay with your religion. All I'm saying is that your religion is no better than any government, and by that i mean also that the government is subjective. Thus, your religion is subjective.
Quote:
Several reasons:
1. We are capable of much more complex activities.
2. We are sentinent.
3. We can deal and reason with other members of our species.
4. We do not simply live to reproduce.
5. We are alive; viruses are questionable in that regard.
6. We can look after our long-term self-interest, not just short-term.
Regarding (4), I'd just say (obviously since you are not religious), that yes we simply live to devastate everything around us.
A virus can say the same thing about you in (6), it's not its fault that you can't understand.
Quote:
How can nature own property? How can abstract things own property?
How can a human own property? 
EDIT: It seems every thread in OSM is turned by Mvass into quote wars because someone says something and he starts to quote it like a Machinegun, repeating the same stuff he could've into just one quote.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 05:34 PM |
|
|
|
Oh, that is true. Biologically, we have the same purpose as bacterias. We live to reproduce and die
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 06:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And I mean my definition of rights, not yours.
I need hardly note that our definitions of rights are different. 
Quote:
The strong need to protect the weak
I'm not sure that you would want to go into that subject. That's another extensive area of discussion. It'd be too much for this thread.
Quote:
Why should you damage others?? Why not, it benefits you (and let's say you won't get caught). That's your materialistic view, why the hell do you care for the "human society" as a whole?
If I damage others, then I break the social contract (even if I can't be punished), and a breakdown in the social contract would ultimately be harmful for me. As I said earlier, if people are going around and stealing and murdering, that's not ultimately in their self-interest. So it benefits me to preserve society (though improve it where it needs improvement). Also, of course, there's the emotional benefit.
Quote:
Just as the first one claimed that territory without any basis, so can the one following
No, he can't. I have already told you why, but I'll tell you again. If the situation were reversed, he wouldn't want that to happen to him. Remember that viewing the world from others' points of view is important for self-interest.
Quote:
You see, yours doesn't work in all cases (where there is no society, or in alien examples), mine does.
Of course mine doesn't work without society. It's like fire working without any input of energy, or lightning without electricity, or something like that. You can't have good or evil without looking at the effects of the action. Could you, for example, name an action that helps society but is evil? Could you name an action that hurts society but is good (other than exterminating the human race for the benefit of nature, aliens, and God)?
Quote:
So here too, since my "theory" about good/evil works in ALL cases, even when no society exists.
You can't talk about the gravity in the absence of mass, just as you can't talk about good and evil in the absence of society.
Quote:
also read the D&D alignments for a change would you? you know why? because in those games, there are a lot more races than just "humans", it's why you can't use that flawed theory of yours
Well, they're humanoids, and they act more or less like humans.
Quote:
Non-aggression principle? Then it applies to animals and nature as well
You're missing the whole purpose of the non-aggression principle. It is designed to help people's self-interest work more effectively by limiting people from attacking and taking from other people. You can't make the same sort of deals with nature. If we stopped all of our cars, mines, and factories, would hurricanes and earthquakes stop? No, I don't think so.
Quote:
If it applies only to humans, sorry then it can't be, since it has favoritism
If you can't magnetize wood, does that mean that the theory of electromagnetism isn't objective?
Quote:
You seem to describe above some human "species" that I am not part of, seriously.
Just think about your actions and about why you perform them.
Quote:
Regarding (4), I'd just say (obviously since you are not religious), that yes we simply live to devastate everything around us.
First, destroying everything is counterproductive and ultimately harmful for us. That goes against self-interest. Second, we don't have to destroy everything. We can enjoy nature, and use it wisely. Third, if we do happen to devastate nature, it's not a purpose but a side effect (a very harmful side effect).
Quote:
A virus can say the same thing about you in (6), it's not its fault that you can't understand.
I'll put it simply, then. Viruses, if unchecked, kill their hosts. If we are smart and use nature wisely, we won't kill it. There's the critical difference.
Quote:
How can a human own property?
Because property is a very useful concept socially.
Quote:
It seems every thread in OSM is turned by Mvass into quote wars because someone says something and he starts to quote it like a Machinegun, repeating the same stuff he could've into just one quote.
Sorry.  It's just easier for me to respond this way. I'll try to have less quote wars in the future. But to say that I repeat myself, it seems that you are not addressing what I write adequately, so I have to bring it up again when it counters one of your arguments.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 07:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If I damage others, then I break the social contract (even if I can't be punished), and a breakdown in the social contract would ultimately be harmful for me. As I said earlier, if people are going around and stealing and murdering, that's not ultimately in their self-interest. So it benefits me to preserve society (though improve it where it needs improvement). Also, of course, there's the emotional benefit.
Let's say that someone doesn't do anything to the society (lazy and gets food himself from somewhere, doesn't matter, it's not in your property, you can even say he gets it from aliens for all I care). Wouldn't it be better for this someone to get "enslaved" and put it to 'help' society (whatever the hell that means)? It happened in the past, with black people
Actually, what does it mean to help society anyway? To help the majority or to help the white people?
Quote:
No, he can't. I have already told you why, but I'll tell you again. If the situation were reversed, he wouldn't want that to happen to him. Remember that viewing the world from others' points of view is important for self-interest.
On the contrary, if the situation were reversed, the first man (with the property) would understand that the other also needs to have that "chance" he got -- I mean, sure he could say that he doesn't want to have his property taken away, but why does the other one have to "work" for it when the first one simply claimed it? I mean, if you view it from his eyes, you'll surely understand that it's unfair -- so much for "human being equal" principle.
Quote:
Of course mine doesn't work without society. It's like fire working without any input of energy, or lightning without electricity, or something like that. You can't have good or evil without looking at the effects of the action. Could you, for example, name an action that helps society but is evil? Could you name an action that hurts society but is good (other than exterminating the human race for the benefit of nature, aliens, and God)?
Action that hurts society and is good: Killing a tyrant alien society that enslaves humans (because we don't want to do their dirty work). This hurts the "alien" society.
Now back to our example: Hurting the tyrant human society is good if it enslaves nature, so to speak. Similar to above. But of course you don't even consider Robin Hood good (not that it has 100% to do with this example but anyway)
Quote:
You can't talk about the gravity in the absence of mass, just as you can't talk about good and evil in the absence of society.
But I can, if I discover that gravity can exist in the absence of mass, then my theory is superior than yours, since it explains that mysterious phenomenon (in this case, the phenomenon is "a world without society" and my theory still WORKS, yours doesn't, thus mine is better).
Quote:
also read the D&D alignments for a change would you? you know why? because in those games, there are a lot more races than just "humans", it's why you can't use that flawed theory of yours
Well, they're humanoids, and they act more or less like humans.
Not all of them, and some are classified as "evil" (e.g: Mind Flayers) while some are "good" -- go figure, make the difference, since both obviously have "societies" and do it for the benefit of their society. That doesn't mean anything. HOW do they do it, means and defines them. The means always define the person, not the "end" result.
Quote:
You're missing the whole purpose of the non-aggression principle. It is designed to help people's self-interest work more effectively by limiting people from attacking and taking from other people. You can't make the same sort of deals with nature. If we stopped all of our cars, mines, and factories, would hurricanes and earthquakes stop? No, I don't think so.
But what the hell does that have to do with my alien example? Dude, you misinterpreted it TWICE. I mean, take this example (last time I repeat myself), and PLEASE ANSWER THIS EXAMPLE, not the analogy it represents:
There are some peaceful aliens on Mars that are not very fond of capitalism and "trade" and all that materialistic stuff (in short, they don't want to trade anything with us). They want to live peacefully, and are intelligent and wise. I don't need to mention they're sentient, do I?
So basically, how precisely does destroying them hurt our society? In absolutely no way. Thus, is it justified to kill them.
Please I'd like your answer to this. If it is "yes" then I hardly have anything to discuss with you anymore. When you emerge from your sheltered, myopic, ego- and self-centric view of the world, then we can talk.
Quote:
Quote:
If it applies only to humans, sorry then it can't be, since it has favoritism
If you can't magnetize wood, does that mean that the theory of electromagnetism isn't objective?
But the theory works on all atoms. This is a point for my "nature" being sentient argument. Just because you can't see the effect (sentience, or magnetism) doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that would be narrow-minded of you. Just because it doesn't "visibly" work on wood doesn't mean it isn't an objective law that applies on any charge!
Quote:
Quote:
You seem to describe above some human "species" that I am not part of, seriously.
Just think about your actions and about why you perform them.
Ok, do you call that "emotional benefit"? Ok, then let me put this for you:
1) Emotional Benefit actions = good
2) Other "benefits" actions = evil or neutral, but evil if you disturb others while doing it
That means, obviously, that (2) motivates you, not that you get 2. Thus, if I help someone out of emotional benefit, and he gives me a TV, it's perfectly fine and good. If, however, I only help him knowing that he gives me a TV, then I am neutral. If I force him to give me the TV, I am evil, regardless of any society (let's suppose that he was going to send the TV in outer space, thus bad for society since it just lost a TV, right?)
At least I reduced the number of quotes a bit
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 07:37 PM |
|
|
I think you're getting a bit too angry. Chill out, as the phrase goes.
Quote:
Wouldn't it be better for this someone to get "enslaved" and put it to 'help' society (whatever the hell that means)?
No, since this would be a violation of the non-agression principle. Remember that he is still a part of society; an inert part, but a part nevertheless.
Quote:
Actually, what does it mean to help society anyway?
Well, you have to remember that society is not a lump. Society is a group of individuals. So an action that benefits a large number of individuals helps society.
Quote:
why does the other one have to "work" for it when the first one simply claimed it?
Because it's already claimed. Think about intellectual property. Bill Gates came up with DOS. Then it became more popular, Windows was invented, and he got rich, because he claimed the intellectual property. If a government said, "You can't have intellectual property. You may have discovered it, but why should you keep others from modifying it?" and took it away, the results would be bad. Same here, only it's physical property, not intellectual property.
Quote:
Action that hurts society and is good: Killing a tyrant alien society that enslaves humans (because we don't want to do their dirty work). This hurts the "alien" society.
I meant "action that hurts human society, but is good".
Quote:
Hurting the tyrant human society is good if it enslaves nature
If nature were somehow able to do it by itself, that'd be one thing. But nature is an abstract concept. And humans wouldn't hurt themselves.
Quote:
if I discover that gravity can exist in the absence of mass
Well, when you do, let me know.
Quote:
my theory still WORKS
Obviously, I disagree. I don't think that your theory works in the first place, so...
Quote:
Not all of them, and some are classified as "evil"
Oh, I thought that you were referring just to Humans, Dwarves, and Elves.
Quote:
So basically, how precisely does destroying them hurt our society? In absolutely no way. Thus, is it justified to kill them.
Killing them would hurt society, even if they are just an inert part of it (don't interact with it, since they're on Mars, but since we know about them, they're part of our known world). And they're sentinent. So it would set a dangerous precedent if we were to kill sentinent beings. So that's why it would be wrong.
Quote:
Just because you can't see the effect (sentience, or magnetism) doesn't mean it doesn't exist
But if I see no evidence of it, why should I assume it's there?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 08:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think you're getting a bit too angry. Chill out, as the phrase goes.
I rarely get angry, and trust me, you wouldn't want to know how I am (in real life obviously, not on message boards I can't even get "angry" here). Perhaps you're referring to my bold parts? Well they're there because I hate to repeat myself and you don't seem to reply to them selectively, at least IMO.
Again I'll have to reduce the quotes. Here we go:
Quote:
Because it's already claimed. Think about intellectual property. Bill Gates came up with DOS. Then it became more popular, Windows was invented, and he got rich, because he claimed the intellectual property. If a government said, "You can't have intellectual property. You may have discovered it, but why should you keep others from modifying it?" and took it away, the results would be bad. Same here, only it's physical property, not intellectual property.
That doesn't prove anything about property, you just state how it is, albeit in some governments (not e.g: communist ones). That's what I don't get about you. You seem to have some sort of religion about how these things with property works. Then again, you claim that governments are subjective (e.g: Swedish government). But you use your religion as if it is something different, something universal to humans as a whole. That's no more objective than any government, and since each one's different (and different types, not only democratic) then you hardly have any point over them. It just is... subjective.
Now if you take it and use it to apply to everything, including aliens (let's say they don't even have a government, they live in anarchy, but they don't slaughter each others since they're far wiser than us and love each other), then it becomes a lot more objective, which is why my view is superior to your religion, and to any government. (superior in the sense that it is more objective)
Quote:
I meant "action that hurts human society, but is good".
Doh, if you would stop quoting parts of my posts, the very NEXT phrase would already explain that, so here it is:Quote:
Quote:
Hurting the tyrant human society is good if it enslaves nature
If nature were somehow able to do it by itself, that'd be one thing. But nature is an abstract concept. And humans wouldn't hurt themselves.
Let's say that some aliens do it, since nature is "powerless" (in a metaphorical way of speaking obviously). see, if those aliens came and harmed the human society (killing those that greatly disturb the balance of nature), then it would be a "good" action.
Quote:
Obviously, I disagree. I don't think that your theory works in the first place, so...
Didn't we discuss this in the Moral Philosophy thread? How can it not work? I can classify someone as evil, I can classify someone as good -- regardless of species. So precisely, tell me, how can it not work?
i feel a misunderstanding here.
Quote:
Oh, I thought that you were referring just to Humans, Dwarves, and Elves.
Nah, all races, including for example, Mind Flayers
Quote:
Killing them would hurt society, even if they are just an inert part of it
How would it hurt "our" society. Obviously it might hurt their society, but then we hurt animal society too (don't tell me it's not a society, anarchy is a society as well).
Quote:
(don't interact with it, since they're on Mars, but since we know about them, they're part of our known world). And they're sentinent. So it would set a dangerous precedent if we were to kill sentinent beings. So that's why it would be wrong.
Dangerous? Is that the only thing stopping us from killing them??? Again, when you emerge from your sheltered, myopic, ego- and self-centric view of the world, then we can reasonably discuss this.
Quote:
But if I see no evidence of it, why should I assume it's there?
Ok, let me put this differently. You don't "assume" it's there, you are just cautious. Let's suppose that you designed some kind of weapon and want to test it. Then, I come to you and say: "Don't detonate it today, because the atmosphere is [...]" something like that. This would cause the chain reaction to occur with the entire sky, and thus a huge nuclear blast, whatever... (i know it sounds silly but bear with me).
Now, are you supposed to be cautious, and not detonate it, or do it?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 09:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That doesn't prove anything about property, you just state how it is
I state how it is, and I agree with it. That's the way it should be. Or do you think that intellectual property shouldn't exist?
Quote:
But you use your religion as if it is something different, something universal to humans as a whole. That's no more objective than any government
Why not? It's both objective and subjective at the same time. It's subjective in the sense that I don't say that anything is inherently good or evil; you have to look at its effects. It's objective in the sense that in the presence of society, an action is objectively good or evil (or neutral, if you prefer).
Quote:
if those aliens came and harmed the human society (killing those that greatly disturb the balance of nature), then it would be a "good" action
We're not even able to talk about this at all. Are the aliens such authoritarians that they will simply destroy us? Do they have a society of their own? Does destroying us benefit them? I just don't see what you're getting at.
Quote:
I can classify someone as evil, I can classify someone as good -- regardless of species.
I can classify a bat as a bird, but does that make that classification correct? You can classify things however you want to, but it doesn't make your method any better than mine.
Quote:
How would it hurt "our" society
Because it is currently considered okay to kill non-sentient beings if one has a good reason to do so (food, for example). But if you start killing sentinent beings, even non-human ones, then that sets a dangerous precedent. That is, the quiestion would rise, "If it's okay to kill sentinent aliens, why isn't it okay to kill humans?" That is exactly why we shouldn't kill them.
Quote:
"Don't detonate it today, because the atmosphere is [...]" something like that. This would cause the chain reaction to occur with the entire sky, and thus a huge nuclear blast, whatever..."
Okay, but this case is different. You can (in theory) explain why I shouldn't fire the weapon: because the sky is ..., and it would be harmful. But it doesn't work that way with nature.
We even have another disconnect here: I support protecting nature. It's just that my reason for it is different than yours. You're acting like I want to destroy the Earth, or something, which I certainly don't want to do.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 09:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I state how it is, and I agree with it. That's the way it should be. Or do you think that intellectual property shouldn't exist?
To be honest, in such a world we live in, I no longer care about that
Quote:
Why not? It's both objective and subjective at the same time. It's subjective in the sense that I don't say that anything is inherently good or evil; you have to look at its effects. It's objective in the sense that in the presence of society, an action is objectively good or evil (or neutral, if you prefer).
Of course it is in a society, but such a society sets that "standard" and it differs from society to society (let's say nations/governments/whatever) so to me it seems that it's utterly subjective.
Quote:
We're not even able to talk about this at all. Are the aliens such authoritarians that they will simply destroy us? Do they have a society of their own? Does destroying us benefit them? I just don't see what you're getting at.
Are we such authoritarians that we simply kill for our benefits?
Ok back to the aliens. Well, I always hate to use force, and always use it as a last resort. So they shouldn't kill us, but make us understand. If we won't then they can kill us.
What benefit do they get? Well, you can call it "emotional benefit" (even though it's vaguely defined that way).. that is, they feel pleased that the Earth is no longer polluted for selfish human benefits for example.
Quote:
I can classify a bat as a bird, but does that make that classification correct? You can classify things however you want to, but it doesn't make your method any better than mine.
If you classify a bat as a bird, you have to state why. If you mean: bird = flying creature, then it's perfectly fine, your definition works, there is no reason not to. If you take it biologically, then of course you should re-define your method, but that doesn't mean the original didn't work just because someone else got it different. Both are objective in the sense that both apply to ALL bats/birds, no exceptions, and no special cases. Heck, if a human would become a flying creature (original definition, not biological one), then it would work to call it a bird, no exceptions.
Quote:
Because it is currently considered okay to kill non-sentient beings if one has a good reason to do so (food, for example). But if you start killing sentinent beings, even non-human ones, then that sets a dangerous precedent. That is, the quiestion would rise, "If it's okay to kill sentinent aliens, why isn't it okay to kill humans?" That is exactly why we shouldn't kill them.
Well I thought that in your opinion, killing humans wasn't ok only because it hurt society, not because they are sentient
I don't like creatures like humans (generalizing obviously) that can be stopped only by force/danger. That can never be truly peaceful. It can only be resolved by love and understanding.
Quote:
We even have another disconnect here: I support protecting nature. It's just that my reason for it is different than yours. You're acting like I want to destroy the Earth, or something, which I certainly don't want to do.
Well I think the reason and thoughts count more than the action (as in: what kind of a person are you). You can't classify a criminal good just because he is in prison and doesn't kill anyone, because he thinks that way
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 10:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To be honest, in such a world we live in, I no longer care about that
But it may be the way out.
Quote:
such a society sets that "standard" and it differs from society to society
Well, what you're referring to is what in the Moral Philosophy thread I referred to as the "Twisting of the Morals", that is, the non-aggression and mutual aid principles got twisted, and thus morals became subjective. But I'm advising a return to the basic morals, which are objective.
Quote:
What benefit do they get? Well, you can call it "emotional benefit" (even though it's vaguely defined that way).. that is, they feel pleased that the Earth is no longer polluted for selfish human benefits for example.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. Well, that makes sense, I suppose. It's kind of like removing slugs from a garden. Very well, then, perhaps the aliens would be justified in doing this.
Quote:
If you mean: bird = flying creature, then it's perfectly fine
If you mean: bird = flying creature, you need to get your head checked.
Quote:
I don't like creatures like humans (generalizing obviously) that can be stopped only by force/danger.
I have already explained how self-interest applies here.
Quote:
You can't classify a criminal good just because he is in prison and doesn't kill anyone, because he thinks that way
If I'm dead, then I don't care what the motivation for his actions was, now do I?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
