|
| Thread: The Universal Off-Topic Discussion Thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But our space, our universe, isn't infinite.
This sounds like a claim which might not be true at all. You cannot know if it's infinite or not, because you cannot have infinite information -- the scientists' God called Light moves with a certain speed. It might even have reached us yet  (it's a "God" because scientists dismiss anything else other than 'light' and say that whatever outside the reach of Light does not exist).
A good example is the so-called "dark matter".
To the best of our knowledge...(insert my claim about universe not being infinite) If the space is infinite, how come it is expanding? Maybe it really isn't, but then you can give a plausible theory what is happening to it, right? 
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 02:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There's nothing to suggest it is.
We can safely assume it's not. It's just a rock in space.
It is "just a rock" NOW, or maybe a stealth satellite
It's not "safely" because it can affect a different location in the future (depending where it lands or goes).
Quote:
Asteroids are alien satellites using stealth stuff?
I think reasonable argument went out the window a long time ago with this discussion and let's call it quits.
Because even when reading my replies in the context of this argument even my own thoughts sound ridiculous where if I said them to ANYONE else except you they would be fine hehe
The above statements are perfectly acceptable but saying them to you in this discussion makes me seem like an ignorant and unreasonable a-hole lol.
Well once calling the Earth round was also unreasonable and ignorant and all the other bad adjectives.
Quote:
I'm done with the AI argument and the asteroids possibly being super secret alien satellites... sorry but I can't go on 
Ok, but my point still stands with putting ourselves in their position and humans "harvesting" them. In most SF stuff, I don't find any hole in the AIs "fighting" with humans -- after all, humans are the ones who started the disrespect and pursued them as 'expendable objects'.
Quote:
Yes and that would have been a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do at the time.
Hmm I doubt you would think like that if it truly was for real -- wait, you wouldn't think at all, you wouldn't exist. I'm starting to think if it wouldn't have been better in the end? (I mean, with our wars etc... we caused more suffering in this world than happiness)
Quote:
This all depends on your ideas of guilt, which are obviously vastly different to mine.
It also depends on your idea of closed system. If you went to your newly found neighbours house to say hi or whatever and he dropped dead because he is allergic to you, I wouldn't consider that your fault.
But this does have spooky resemblance to the discovery of America and Australia etc.
Yes it has spooky resemblance and it was my point of the analogy actually. What we have done to Native Americans, let's just say that I learn from history, and it was not an objective good thing.
I mean, if you expect it to have been a reasonable "thing" for the European colonists to do, then also be sure to expect aliens wanting to "wipe us out" pretty reasonable -- after all, they just use OUR mentality, why be afraid of OUR mentality? 
Besides, "guilt" of something is when you do an action. You don't make any action, you can't be guilty
But lastly, this important quote:Quote:
What makes you think things are in balance?
I'm not saying they necessarily are "in balance" (whatever that means). Let's say the CURRENT balance, whatever it is. With the above definition of guilt, if we 'modify' it by doing something, then we CAN be called guilty of it -- it might be a chance that the asteroid would have done something, for example, and in that context, we are guilty.
Also, of course you have "reasonable" things to assume that the asteroid might do something -- after all, you read my posts, so at least you can treat them as a "basis". But then again, if I am a tiger, and you're a gorilla, the gorilla finds no reason to assume something the tiger wants to say to it -- but that doesn't mean the tiger is 'wrong' or that it didn't prevent the gorilla of possible stuff that the gorilla is not aware.
It also applies the other way: the tiger might not be aware of the stuff the gorilla says from, but he DOES have the gorilla's "word". For example, if the tiger doesn't feel fire, but the gorilla says it's wrong to touch it as it'll burn, then the tiger has a 'basis' to assume that the fire will harm him -- the gorilla's words, even though the tiger doesn't feel it. The other way applies as well.
Just because you don't find a reasonable basis doesn't mean that everyone doesn't.
@mvassilev:Quote:
Several times I have presented to you the example of a fox in a henhouse. It eats or strangles all of them, and, if that's the only food left, it starves. Humans acting rationally would never waste their resources like that.
You're not getting my initial point. Nature, as far as I know, self-preserves itself, it's called ecosystem balance or something I think. We, humans, changed it, and it's why we have "waste" of resources.
Your example is off the point.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 08, 2008 11:50 PM |
|
|
@Minion
Quote:
How can you say that something that doesn't exist in the first place, to be big or small, gray or purple? You can't give attributes to nothingness or matters that aren't there. I am simply taking the scientific view, nothing indicates anything to be beyond the boundaries our Universe.
Last time I checked, the space itself was a big load of nothing. That's why it's called space. There are stars, planets etcetera but between them there's just a lot of black emptiness, or nothingness.
So I might ask you a similar question. How do you know that nothingness is finite? The content of space is expanding, not space itself.
Quote:
Black holes have a mass, and therefore are constucted of a finite amount of matter.
Antimatter. Black holes are constructed of antimatter. They eat matter.
There is a slight difference.
@MVas
Quote:
The possiblity of intelligent life is even less likely than non-intelligent life, which is already unlikely at any given place.
Did you see the link I gave you? No?
Ok. Here it is again. I'm sure you accidentally missed it the last time.
The entire point which you, for some reason, refuse to note is that life not only possibly, but probably exists elsewhere. And I doubt that, if that's the case, we're the oldest race in the universe. Other life might have existed far longer than we did, and evolved to a much higher stage than us.
Maybe that's the thing? It doesn't matter whether something is out there (you acknowledged the possibility of bacteria), what matters is that we're better than it?
The only thing worse than people who want to exterminate mankind are those who are convinced in its superiority
Quote:
What if we take the total universe (except for one object) as being one object, and the one object as the other? Then the force would be infinite, if the universe's mass was.
See, that's the catch. You can't take the total universe as one object because the formula only works for point-sized and homogeneous spherical masses. So it's not applicable if you split the universe into two pieces. I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news You'll learn it at school at some point.
And, though I'm meddling in other people's discussion...
Quote:
Several times I have presented to you the example of a fox in a henhouse. It eats or strangles all of them, and, if that's the only food left, it starves.
Ironically it was the humans that built the henhouse. You won't find a henhouse in a forest. A fox certainly wouldn't be able to catch and eat every rabbit in the forest, but it would catch as much as it could, which is enough for it to survive, and for bunnies to multiply. Nature's taking care of itself
Human experiments are sometimes just not applicable for natural circumstances, which we sometimes fail to see.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 03:35 AM |
|
|
TheDeath and Bak:
Quote:
Nature, as far as I know, self-preserves itself, it's called ecosystem balance or something I think.
The point is that if the fox could kill all the chickens, it would. Not so with humans. They can certainly kill all of the chickens, but they don't. In this way, they're much better at using resources.
Bak:
Quote:
Did you see the link I gave you? No?
Quote:
The possiblity of intelligent life is even less likely than non-intelligent life, which is already unlikely at any given place.
Key point highlighted.
Quote:
Maybe that's the thing? It doesn't matter whether something is out there (you acknowledged the possibility of bacteria), what matters is that we're better than it?
That's an interesting thing to say. Define "better".
Quote:
You can't take the total universe as one object because the formula only works for point-sized and homogeneous spherical masses.
If the universe's mass is infinite, though, and it is expanding from a central point, then the gravity should just pull it back into that central point, then, immediately, if the mass was infinite, because the net sum of the pull would be towards that central point.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 07:38 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 07:47, 09 Sep 2008.
|
@Baklava
Quote:
Last time I checked, the space itself was a big load of nothing. That's why it's called space. There are stars, planets etcetera but between them there's just a lot of black emptiness, or nothingness.
You are wrong. The vast gaps between the stars and planets are filled with huge amounts of thinly spread gas and dust. Even the emptiest parts of space contain at least a few hundred atoms or molecules per cubic metre.
Space is also filled with many forms of radiation that are dangerous to astronauts. Much of this infrared and ultraviolet radiation comes from the Sun. High energy X-rays, gamma rays and cosmic rays – particles travelling close to the speed of light – arrive from distant star systems.
Quote:
So I might ask you a similar question. How do you know that nothingness is finite? The content of space is expanding, not space itself.
Well I don't know it, but there is a difference in an existing nothingness (vacuum) and non-existing nothingness. Since we define Universe as everything that is in existence, according to that definition there is nothing (in the sense of not existing at all) outside our Universe.
Quote:
Quote:
Black holes have a mass, and therefore are constucted of a finite amount of matter.
Antimatter. Black holes are constructed of antimatter. They eat matter.
There is a slight difference.
Wrong again. Loosely speaking, a black hole is a region of space that has so much mass (matter) concentrated in it that there is no way for a nearby object to escape its gravitational pull. Antimatter has nothing to do with this, and that is a big difference.
Your facts are quite lacking, I hope you don't get these ideas from your schoolbooks
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 08:59 AM |
|
|
Yeah, black holes aren't antimatter.
Antimatter is something entirely different altogether.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 09:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes it has spooky resemblance and it was my point of the analogy actually. What we have done to Native Americans, let's just say that I learn from history, and it was not an objective good thing.
Well if these lands had never been colonized I would be sitting around playing didgeridoo and talking about the dreamtime n such right about now... as per the past 40,000 years or whatever
Quote:
I mean, if you expect it to have been a reasonable "thing" for the European colonists to do, then also be sure to expect aliens wanting to "wipe us out" pretty reasonable -- after all, they just use OUR mentality, why be afraid of OUR mentality?
Something can be reasonable without you liking it.
Quote:
Besides, "guilt" of something is when you do an action. You don't make any action, you can't be guilty
This is the most untrue thing you have ever said.
If a man is drowning and asks you for a hand to help him up and you just sit there because you think he might be an alien using stealth systems, you are guilty of letting him drown.
You are guilty by inaction.
There are many examples of this not only in morality but also in the court of law.
Quote:
Just because you don't find a reasonable basis doesn't mean that everyone doesn't.
I'm not sure about all the gorillaz and tigers but I think you'll be hard pressed to find many other people who share your views on asteroids and their higher purpose
Quote:
You're not getting my initial point. Nature, as far as I know, self-preserves itself, it's called ecosystem balance or something I think. We, humans, changed it, and it's why we have "waste" of resources.
Nature self preserves itself... how does this make sense?
Nature is always going to be nature by definition, so the statement is kind of redundant in that sense. But if you mean it maintains it's ecosystem balance, the nature and ecosystem is also constantly changing so it obviously isn't maintained in the way you think.
And animals do waste resources all the time. An example off the top of my head is Koalas, which can overpopulate and strip the trees.
Also humans are a part of nature just as any other animal. It's natural to want more, and we behave just the same as other animals on this planet.
The only difference is we have more means and technology through our intelligence, and it is this very intelligence that if we put our minds to it so to speak we could manage our resources better.
Combine this with better technology and recycling, and we can close the loops completely.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 11:18 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 11:21, 09 Sep 2008.
|
@MVas
Quote:
Key point highlighted.
What key point?
Quote:
That's an interesting thing to say. Define "better".
I was being sarcastic...
Quote:
If the universe's mass is infinite, though, and it is expanding from a central point, then the gravity should just pull it back into that central point, then, immediately, if the mass was infinite, because the net sum of the pull would be towards that central point.
Apparently the net sum of the push was (and still is) greater than the net sum of the pull. So the universe expands.
Some speculate the big bang is still in progress. Space might be expanding by inertia. Others suggest that we're all living in a moment. Maybe the universe will stop spreading, the net sum of the pull will become greater than the push and it will collapse at some point. And maybe that will cause another Big Bang which will start the process all over again.
@Minion
Quote:
You are wrong. The vast gaps between the stars and planets are filled with huge amounts of thinly spread gas and dust. Even the emptiest parts of space contain at least a few hundred atoms or molecules per cubic metre.
Space is also filled with many forms of radiation that are dangerous to astronauts. Much of this infrared and ultraviolet radiation comes from the Sun. High energy X-rays, gamma rays and cosmic rays – particles travelling close to the speed of light – arrive from distant star systems.
Radiation coming from stars surely exists outside of space too, since the space emits it. Or at least the stars on its boundaries.
About gas and dust, that's a valid point but nothing guarantees us that they aren't spread outside the universe too.
Quote:
Well I don't know it, but there is a difference in an existing nothingness (vacuum) and non-existing nothingness.
There is? Ok, I didn't know that... Please explain it to me. I'm interested. I always found nothingness a pretty... generally same thing.
Quote:
Since we define Universe as everything that is in existence, according to that definition there is nothing (in the sense of not existing at all) outside our Universe.
Humanity once defined the Earth as flat. It was wrong.
It might as well be wrong again. There were thousands of wrong definitions in the past. There may be infinite universes out there, each expanding in the nothingness just like ours does. Maybe all that is a greater universe of some sort. Like I said, you reach infinity no matter how you look at it.
Quote:
Wrong again. Loosely speaking, a black hole is a region of space that has so much mass (matter) concentrated in it that there is no way for a nearby object to escape its gravitational pull. Antimatter has nothing to do with this, and that is a big difference.
Apparently we're both wrong. I looked it up and found that there are both matter and antimatter black holes. So there you have it.
And no, I don't get ideas from my schoolbooks. They're too... generic. I find it far more interesting to do some research myself, across other books, the Internet and various other sources. Sometimes I'm wrong, or get some wrong info, and that's the coolest bit of it all. I'm completely willing to agree if someone proves me wrong. You learn on mistakes.
However no one's going to prove me wrong without a decent explanation
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 12:02 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 12:09, 09 Sep 2008.
|
@Baklava
Quote:
Radiation coming from stars surely exists outside of space too, since the space emits it. Or at least the stars on its boundaries.
About gas and dust, that's a valid point but nothing guarantees us that they aren't spread outside the universe too.
It does not exist outside of universe. Definition of Universe : The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. There shouldn't be anything beyond it. But you probably want an explanation why doesn't radiation get away from the Universe? The Universe is expanding at a faster than light pace, and it is accelerating still. And you did claim that space was empty, which it surely isn't, so you could admit that
Quote:
Quote:
Well I don't know it, but there is a difference in an existing nothingness (vacuum) and non-existing nothingness.
There is? Ok, I didn't know that... Please explain it to me. I'm interested. I always found nothingness a pretty... generally same thing.
I thought so too  You understand nothingness as an completely empty 3 dimensional space. My nothingness doesn't even have Volume or that space. It is not there. I can't probably explain it well, other than it does not exist at all, no boundaries, no nothing.
Quote:
Quote:
Since we define Universe as everything that is in existence, according to that definition there is nothing (in the sense of not existing at all) outside our Universe.
Humanity once defined the Earth as flat. It was wrong.
It might as well be wrong again. There were thousands of wrong definitions in the past. There may be infinite universes out there, each expanding in the nothingness just like ours does. Maybe all that is a greater universe of some sort. Like I said, you reach infinity no matter how you look at it.
Lol. If you use the word Universe, isn't it better that you also use it the way it is meant to be used? Come on, you can't go talking about religion and saying that to you Pope means the lollipop that kids get when they visit a dentist. But back to the topic, sure there are possibilities! Everything is possible, little do we know? But you must admit that we can't discuss about them if we don't have same vocabulary. What you are talking about is actually the hypothese of a multiverse (or meta-universe) - a set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of reality.
Quote:
Apparently we're both wrong. I looked it up and found that there are both matter and antimatter black holes. So there you have it.
Antimatter blackholes have not been observed. Neither have antimatter stars, although they are theoretically possible. But you must know that there is VERY little antimatter in the universe, and creating a star needs a lot of it clumped at a "small" area. Creating a black hole needs a whole lot more, so its own weight makes it collapse! You understand the very low probability when you understand that antimatter is destroyed when it meets matter - so no big chunks of antimatter can develop in circumstanses like these. Theoretically speaking again, it is possible that for some reason at some part of universe the matter-antimatter distribution is upside down, and there are galaxies of antimatter. But I wouldn't go as far as you as stating that there actually are antimatter blackholes.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 12:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
pig chunks of antimatter
this quote creates a confusing mental picture
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 12:13 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 12:15, 09 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
pig chunks of antimatter
this quote creates a confusing mental picture
Why you little... *grr* 
It was there for a minute only 
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 01:02 PM |
|
|
Ok I'll try to cut off most quotes.
Quote:
Well if these lands had never been colonized I would be sitting around playing didgeridoo and talking about the dreamtime n such right about now... as per the past 40,000 years or whatever
And...? What about the aliens (or in this analogy, natives) that would have wanted that (maybe)? Who are you to say that your preferences are superior and thus colonization, destroying their "homes" and putting up your stuff is, well, objectively good?
By that logic, it's perfectly reasonable for aliens to come, wipe us out, and then impose their preferences here.
Alien: "You know, if the Earth was never colonized by us, the Earth would be now a place all that human crap, when instead we want xyzw..." -- HOW EXACTLY does this justify it, from an objective POV, while "wiping humans" is not?
How is that different from what you said? How, exactly, with YOUR logic, is "wiping humans" a bad thing? It's perfectly OK, after all, we humans approve of wiping stuff 
Quote:
This is the most untrue thing you have ever said.
If a man is drowning and asks you for a hand to help him up and you just sit there because you think he might be an alien using stealth systems, you are guilty of letting him drown.
You are guilty by inaction.
There are many examples of this not only in morality but also in the court of law.
I wasn't talking about a law. Yes you MAY be guilty of inaction, but NO ONE can blame you for it, if the system is perfect. Why? Because otherwise, you are FORCED to do an action, which is not kinda a free system, is it?
You see, guilty of inaction is a different form of guilt. No one can blame you for it in the same sense, because no one can FORCE you or expect you to do it -- you do it only if you want.
Quote:
Also humans are a part of nature just as any other animal. It's natural to want more, and we behave just the same as other animals on this planet.
The only difference is we have more means and technology through our intelligence, and it is this very intelligence that if we put our minds to it so to speak we could manage our resources better.
Combine this with better technology and recycling, and we can close the loops completely.
If we want more resources, then no amount of "intelligence" is going to stop from wanting even more then. If we take more resources, we'll go and expand. The story repeats itself. That is, the more we get, the more we have, and the more we want. The root of the problem is to stop the expansion, not to "help" the expansion by getting more and more!
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 01:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And...? What about the aliens (or in this analogy, natives) that would have wanted that (maybe)? Who are you to say that your preferences are superior and thus colonization, destroying their "homes" and putting up your stuff is, well, objectively good?
First of all, what is objectively good?
That's another moral issue altogether.
Secondly, I was talking specifically about just GOING to continents like Australia etc. not the atrocities that occured afterwards.
Quote:
By that logic, it's perfectly reasonable for aliens to come, wipe us out, and then impose their preferences here.
Not if they intend to wipe us out, it's not reasonable.
Intention of wiping people out was never mentioned by me.
Quote:
I wasn't talking about a law. Yes you MAY be guilty of inaction, but NO ONE can blame you for it, if the system is perfect. Why? Because otherwise, you are FORCED to do an action, which is not kinda a free system, is it?
You see, guilty of inaction is a different form of guilt. No one can blame you for it in the same sense, because no one can FORCE you or expect you to do it -- you do it only if you want.
Anyone can blame you for it what are you talking about.
If the man is drowning and it doesn't harm you to help lift him out of the water, but you choose not to because you'd rather do nothing, the blame lies on you.
Everyone can blame you. Everyone can expect you to.
How can you argue differently?
Quote:
If we want more resources, then no amount of "intelligence" is going to stop from wanting even more then. If we take more resources, we'll go and expand. The story repeats itself. That is, the more we get, the more we have, and the more we want. The root of the problem is to stop the expansion, not to "help" the expansion by getting more and more!
As I've said before, the expansion can be slowed and controlled once we have the technology and resources to abolish poverty.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 01:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
First of all, what is objectively good?
That's another moral issue altogether.
Objectively good = good for EVERYONE, EVERY species, that applies to ALL.
Quote:
Secondly, I was talking specifically about just GOING to continents like Australia etc. not the atrocities that occured afterwards.
Would you have your home invaded by aliens just as they wish? That is ok, right?
Quote:
Anyone can blame you for it what are you talking about.
If the man is drowning and it doesn't harm you to help lift him out of the water, but you choose not to because you'd rather do nothing, the blame lies on you.
Everyone can blame you. Everyone can expect you to.
How can you argue differently?
Person A: "Help me, I'm drowning!"
Person B: "Heck, I don't want to help you."
Person A dies.
Person C: "Why didn't you help him? You're guilty you bastard!"
Person B: "Are you telling me that I am FORCED to help him?"
Person B: "Tell you what: I will go and save the next drowning man, if you'll go and save absolutely every man on Earth, and devote your life to it. After all, I can FORCE you to do that, otherwise you're guilty!"
If Person C expects Person B to save Person A, then he is actually FORCING Person B to do something. How is that any different than any other "force" used?
Why would anyone expect, in a free system, someone else to save if they don't want it? How can they be guilty because of something they haven't done? If they are, then you are also guilty for not doing X, not doing Y and not doing Z.
I'm being objective here, not society biased.
Quote:
As I've said before, the expansion can be slowed and controlled once we have the technology and resources to abolish poverty.
The expansion needs to be controlled NOW.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 01:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Objectively good = good for EVERYONE, EVERY species, that applies to ALL.
Nothing applies to all. (in terms of being good/bad)
How can we find objective truth when all we have as reference is subjective views and accounts?
Are some subjective views more important than others?
If there is an objective viewpoint but we can never reach it, what's the point of even mentioning it?
It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, I was talking specifically about just GOING to continents like Australia etc. not the atrocities that occured afterwards.
Would you have your home invaded by aliens just as they wish? That is ok, right?
I have no problem with aliens coming to Earth.
If they invade or kill afterwards then I have a problem. But I specifically stated that we're not talking about that here. We're talking about just contact because that's all that's relevant from that example.
Quote:
If Person C expects Person B to save Person A, then he is actually FORCING Person B to do something. How is that any different than any other "force" used?
It's called moral obligation.
There is of course a reasonable limit and you can twist and stretch it to make it look bad but it will still exist.
So you're telling me that if it doesn't inconvenience or harm in any way for person X to save person Ys life, and he chooses not to to be inactive, that's perfectly fine with you?
I find this morally repugnant.
Quote:
Why would anyone expect, in a free system, someone else to save if they don't want it? How can they be guilty because of something they haven't done? If they are, then you are also guilty for not doing X, not doing Y and not doing Z.
I'm being objective here, not society biased.
Moral obligation.
Also your logic about not doing X Y and Z is untrue. There is a limit to it, obviously.
If you think the situation I mentioned is COMPLETELY FINE, then I find something fundamentally wrong with your moral personality. Honestly.
Quote:
Quote:
As I've said before, the expansion can be slowed and controlled once we have the technology and resources to abolish poverty.
The expansion needs to be controlled NOW.
Then we will die out a species.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 01:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nothing applies to all. (in terms of being good/bad)
O rly? Take this example.
Aliens do the same to us as we do to them. If we tolerate them, they tolerate us. If we tolerate them, and they don't tolerate us, then they're evil, and we're neutral or good. If it's the other way around, then it's the other way around
It is good for all, when everyone has the same mentality. Would they like to get wiped out? Then they shouldn't wipe us out. Likewise it applies to us and EVERY species.
In fact, this becomes very interesting when you make a computer simulation with 5000 species, and determine which is the "goodest" of all, which is the "neutral" and which is "evil"
Quote:
I have no problem with aliens coming to Earth.
If they invade or kill afterwards then I have a problem. But I specifically stated that we're not talking about that here. We're talking about just contact because that's all that's relevant from that example.
Oh, then why don't you allow every stranger to walk through your house as he wants? As long as he doesn't murder, and doesn't steal
Quote:
It's called moral obligation.
Yes it is, so? I never said that I agree with not helping that man, after all I prefer to be "good" rather than "neutral". However, I pointed out that you objectively can't be guilty for something you haven't done. If someone labels you as such, then he expects you to do something he would have wanted -- that is, FORCING you.
I was trying to be objective.
Quote:
If you think the situation I mentioned is COMPLETELY FINE, then I find something fundamentally wrong with your moral personality. Honestly.
I don't have subjective morals. I was using a neutral viewpoint above. Simple as that. It doesn't mean, me, as TheDeath, am that way. But when you're objective, you have to "let go" of your personality
Quote:
Then we will die out a species.
Really? How did humans manage to survive so long I wonder?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 02:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing applies to all. (in terms of being good/bad)
O rly? Take this example.
Aliens do the same to us as we do to them. If we tolerate them, they tolerate us. If we tolerate them, and they don't tolerate us, then they're evil, and we're neutral or good. If it's the other way around, then it's the other way around
It is good for all, when everyone has the same mentality. Would they like to get wiped out? Then they shouldn't wipe us out. Likewise it applies to us and EVERY species.
In fact, this becomes very interesting when you make a computer simulation with 5000 species, and determine which is the "goodest" of all, which is the "neutral" and which is "evil"
Yeah but what if some humans DO want to be wiped out.
(Darks )
Situation fails.
You can't say that any one thing is good for EVERYONE.
Quote:
Oh, then why don't you allow every stranger to walk through your house as he wants? As long as he doesn't murder, and doesn't steal
Ok
So far, no strangers have wanted to.
Wait a second, why should something that applies to a planet apply to my house
And thirdly, when did we skip from "a nearby floating rock" to "an alien home planet"
Quote:
Yes it is, so? I never said that I agree with not helping that man, after all I prefer to be "good" rather than "neutral". However, I pointed out that you objectively can't be guilty for something you haven't done. If someone labels you as such, then he expects you to do something he would have wanted -- that is, FORCING you.
I was trying to be objective.
If the only difference between not saving him and saving him is that he is alive rather than dead, then you may as well have killed him.
Quote:
Quote:
Then we will die out a species.
Really? How did humans manage to survive so long I wonder?
What do you mean?
If we die at time t without expanding beyond Earth, then why is it wonderous that we surved up to time (t-x), ie, now?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 02:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah but what if some humans DO want to be wiped out.
(Darks )
Situation fails.
You can't say that any one thing is good for EVERYONE.
Exactly. Or take emos. Good/Evil are subjective.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah but what if some humans DO want to be wiped out.
(Darks )
What? As long as he doesn't wipe out everyone else (without reason, that is they don't wipe anything out at all) then it's ok. I mean, good/neutral deals mainly with tolerance and not imposing stuff on others.
Of course, if the others were "aggressors" (for Aliens for example) then he can still be good while wiping them, that is, "defended" those aggressed.
Quote:
If the only difference between not saving him and saving him is that he is alive rather than dead, then you may as well have killed him.
Well the outcome might be the same, but killing him without his permission makes you guilty of an ACTION
Quote:
If we die at time t without expanding beyond Earth, then why is it wonderous that we surved up to time (t-x), ie, now?
The longer the time 't', the more humans waste resources and get into a crisis. That is, more resources is NOT the solution, because then we will get even more deep into the **** hole, if you get the expression, and later it will be harder to get out. The solution is to stop needing so many resources, which can be fixed with no overpopulation.
What's done is done. We shouldn't kill people now just because we're overpopulated. But we have to keep it under control from now on. If we don't, we end up with needing MORE and MORE stuff. Eventually leading to another crisis.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 02:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Exactly. Or take emos. Good/Evil are subjective.
Regardless of how many times I explain this to you, you still cling on your statements. If emoes impose their preferences on someone else, they're evil. No one else imposes on THEM. So it's absolute. Period.
It's MEASURABLE, the basis on ABSOLUTE viewpoints. Unlike yours, which is measurable by individual.
|
| |
|
|
