|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 04, 2008 09:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If I was absolutely sure that it would prevent 100 others from having their rights violated (and if everyone agreed with me in that).
Do you want a "wild west" type of system? 
Quote:
But if you can classify it into either, that means that it's not inherently negative.
Think of it like this.
There are two types of animals. Vegetarians and carnivores. One is inherently vegetarian, the other is inherently carnivore. What can you say about the animal? You can't, because it depends on the type.
Quote:
But it had no will otherwise. Is it against the will of your keyboard for you to be typing on it? Remember that non-living things don't have a will.
I didn't say it was against it's will -- but once it's born/conceived, I'm saying that it's you who put it in that place! Therefore, you are responsible for its starving. What is so hard to understand?
It's like conceived an animal clone in a lab, not in the wild. In the wild, it could feed itself and survive. In the lab, it can't, so you are responsible for its starving. Is that really so hard to understand?
Quote:
Would you do it or not?
Like I said, my opinion is irrelevant.
Quote:
But isn't the law subjective?
Yes it is, but I am talking about the "freedom of rights" principle which can be put in different laws. This principle is, I presume, what most people want.
We're not in the wild west when we make our own justice!
Quote:
No, of course not. But when you have 1 person clamoring to live at the expense of the lives of 100 others, and then you have 100 people clamoring to live at the expense of 1 other, it's hard to justify listening to 1 over 100. (If all other conditions are equal.)
That's what annoys me. You think in that "big picture" because you are not involved in it, thus it's easy to type from a safe distance. But put yourself in the perspective on them and try to understand their point of view.
Quote:
All action is in one's own self interest.
"It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 10:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you want a "wild west" type of system?
Now where did I say something like that?
Quote:
There are two types of animals. Vegetarians and carnivores. One is inherently vegetarian, the other is inherently carnivore. What can you say about the animal? You can't, because it depends on the type.
But you then you can't say that animals are inherently carnivores, because they aren't.
Quote:
Therefore, you are responsible for its starving
You are only responsible for others if you violate their rights. At what point are the fetus's rights violated?
Quote:
Like I said, my opinion is irrelevant.
But I'd like to know it anyway.
Quote:
This principle is, I presume, what most people want.
But didn't you say that what's popular isn't always right?
Quote:
You think in that "big picture" because you are not involved in it, thus it's easy to type from a safe distance. But put yourself in the perspective on them and try to understand their point of view.
Okay, let me put myself into the shoes of each of the three individuals:
1 guy: I'd like to not get killed, even at the expense of the other hundred.
One of the hundred: I'd like to not get killed, even at the expense of the one guy.
Guy with the switch: If I don't have any affinity with the 1 guy (such as being a friend or family member), then I'd pull the switch and save 100 lives.
One's own life is usually at or near the top of importance, along with the lives of close ones. Then comes the life of the majority (if it's at the expense of the life of the minority).
Quote:
"It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."
"It is not so. I know it is not so. I have said it is not so, therefore, it is not so."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 04, 2008 11:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If I was absolutely sure that it would prevent 100 others from having their rights violated (and if everyone agreed with me in that).
Do you want a "wild west" type of system?
Heck, stop ignoring the subject! Would you sacrifice 100 for 1, or 1 for 100?
Unless the 100 was rapist/murderers/etc and the 1 was clean, i would have sacrificed the 1 for the 100 if i would not have the time to untie the 1.
Quote:
Quote:
But if you can classify it into either, that means that it's not inherently negative.
Think of it like this. There are two types of animals. Vegetarians and carnivores. One is inherently vegetarian, the other is inherently carnivore. What can you say about the animal? You can't, because it depends on the type.
The only factor here is what they eat. I can't se anything to build on here.
Since it are only 1 factor, what is there to say?
Quote:
Quote:
Would you do it or not?
Like I said, my opinion is irrelevant.
It is relevant for the current case.
Quote:
Quote:
But isn't the law subjective?
Yes it is, but I am talking about the "freedom of rights" principle which can be put in different laws. This principle is, I presume, what most people want.
We're not in the wild west when we make our own justice!
This did not exactly happen in the wild wild west as you name it, the case at that society model was that in most cases you could be to far away from the law. But the law was still there. The Question is the amount.
Quote:
Quote:
No, of course not. But when you have 1 person clamoring to live at the expense of the lives of 100 others, and then you have 100 people clamoring to live at the expense of 1 other, it's hard to justify listening to 1 over 100. (If all other conditions are equal.)
That's what annoys me. You think in that "big picture" because you are not involved in it, thus it's easy to type from a safe distance. But put yourself in the perspective on them and try to understand their point of view.
Lets say you are by some random accident standing in a situation where there are 100 and 1 people infront of you. Each of them are equal in all terms, they are humans.
And one of the groups is going to die, and you get the choice of what group?
This is about the idea, what choices are to be made, etc. It is the idea, and thus anwser on it. Because it is 100% hypotetical.
Quote:
Quote:
All action is in one's own self interest.
"It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."
The US constitution?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 04:56 PM |
|
|
@mvassilev:The manner in which this discussion is heading is, shall I say, on a circular way that repeats itself and never finishes, goes in circles. This will be one of the few attempts where I will quote everything so don't feel "ignored" if I don't quote everything.
Quote:
Now where did I say something like that?
Well you pick which one to sacrifice by force -- because you pick on the weak (fetus) they can't fight back (I'm talking about Stem Cell Research)
Quote:
But you then you can't say that animals are inherently carnivores, because they aren't.
Exactly, but the 'animal' itself is both inherently herbivore and carnivore, and not at the same time -- you simply cannot use it when speaking about that. You will have to solve the ambiguity by using either "herbivore animals" and "carnivore animals" -- thus in our example, you have to solve the ambiguity by using "positive life" and "negative life" because life by itself can refer to any of these two, it is ambiguous. In our case, it is a "negative life" 
Quote:
You are only responsible for others if you violate their rights. At what point are the fetus's rights violated?
Are you going to repeat that question to infinity? I already answered that -- every moment it lives.
But let's take a look at it differently. You say that the mother should have full rights. There is a problem in that -- because she conceived the fetus, thus if she would have wanted to preserve her rights, she wouldn't do so. Therefore, there is a very simple rule, and goes as follows:
If the mother does not want to have any obligations (preserve her rights), then she should not conceive the fetus. It's as simple as that, you are NOT ALLOWED to play with someone else's life (the fetus in this case). If she conceived the fetus, she automatically loses her rights, because it WAS HER FAULT, so there's no one else to blame for 'violating' her rights. If you do not agree and want to live in a world where it's like Survival of the Fittest (you are stronger than a fetus or an animal, thus you think you can play with its life however you want). Must I remind you that is the law of the primitive jungle?
In some countries in the European Union, most "playing with life" has been banned, even with animals (surprise, we're not that savage anymore to care only about humans and our species), at least from what I heard. That means you are usually not allowed to take an egg from the WILD, and put it in your home, and then NOT FEEDING the animal (even though the egg is "alive", but let's suppose it is NOT). By taking the egg, you have also gained the responsibility towards it -- that means you have 'violated' your OWN rights. You will be forced to feed it, because of you and I see no problem in that.
If you would have wanted to not have any obligations, then you shouldn't have stolen the egg. It is as simple as that really. (Again note that in this example, the egg is not alive!!!).
I don't know how it's in America but from what I've seen it's barbaric and doesn't treat life very well, especially when it's not from our own species or for our benefit. 
Quote:
But I'd like to know it anyway.
I'd try to save that 1 person and then flip the switch
If I fail, that's it, at least I tried, and i can't be sued for anything (because flipping the switch is none of my business normally, thus I can be sued for that in "normal" situations).
Quote:
But didn't you say that what's popular isn't always right?
Who said anything about it being 'right'?
I only said that it treats everyone equally -- that means, no popular preferences, no "exceptions".
Exceptions are not good. Burning 'witches' was once an exception. Are you in favor of that too? The people back then truly believed they are bad. Now you truly believe that whatever rights you violate (and are not accused) is "good" in the end... WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
Quote:
Guy with the switch: If I don't have any affinity with the 1 guy (such as being a friend or family member), then I'd pull the switch and save 100 lives.
Question: Why wouldn't you instead just leave it alone? This way you could get into trouble -- but you can't be sued for not doing anything, wheras here you can if the jury is not "reasonable".
Quote:
"It is not so. I know it is not so. I have said it is not so, therefore, it is not so."
Haha 
I used it only to explain to you that you don't have a clue except from your opinion -- you don't know how others are
@del_diablo:Quote:
Heck, stop ignoring the subject! Would you sacrifice 100 for 1, or 1 for 100?
I wouldn't sacrifice anyone. If I wouldn't be there, the fault were not mine. Thus, I do not sacrifice anyone, it's just how things happen.
Quote:
Unless the 100 was rapist/murderers/etc and the 1 was clean, i would have sacrificed the 1 for the 100 if i would not have the time to untie the 1.
Ever considered for not intervening. And you say you are a buddhist? How about karma? It will eventually turn against you (because YOU did something) -- if you ignored it, then you wouldn't be blamed.
Quote:
The only factor here is what they eat. I can't se anything to build on here.
Since it are only 1 factor, what is there to say?
This was only an example that represented how to define "types" of animals. I can use the following bad example too:
There are two types of books. Bad books and Good books. Bad books are inherently boring. Good books are inherently pleasant to read.
Quote:
This did not exactly happen in the wild wild west as you name it, the case at that society model was that in most cases you could be to far away from the law. But the law was still there. The Question is the amount.
The law was there, but no one used it as a "holy" text, thus the "gun was the law".
Quote:
Lets say you are by some random accident standing in a situation where there are 100 and 1 people infront of you. Each of them are equal in all terms, they are humans.
And one of the groups is going to die, and you get the choice of what group?
This is about the idea, what choices are to be made, etc. It is the idea, and thus anwser on it. Because it is 100% hypotetical.
This is not the idea. Because Stem Cell Research is NOT an accident.
Here, I am not to be blamed if some group dies, because if I don't intervene, some of them would die. If I intervene, as in the Stem Cell Research case, then I am violating the respective's rights.
For example, if someone dies from a disease, I don't violate any rights.
If I kill somebody else to cure that one from a disease, I am violating rights.
Quote:
The US constitution?
We were talking about morals.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 05:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The manner in which this discussion is heading is, shall I say, on a circular way that repeats itself and never finishes, goes in circles.
Most arguments, if pursued for long enough, end up that way.
Quote:
Well you pick which one to sacrifice by force -- because you pick on the weak (fetus) they can't fight back
No, we "pick" on the fetus because it doesn't have any rights. (Yes, "subjective interpretation of society", I know.)
Quote:
the 'animal' itself is both inherently herbivore and carnivore, and not at the same time
Hmm... No, I wouldn't say that. I'd say that the animal is inherently neither herbivore nor carnivore.
Quote:
Are you going to repeat that question to infinity? I already answered that -- every moment it lives.
All right then, here's a different question: how are the fetus's rights violated?
Quote:
she conceived the fetus, thus if she would have wanted to preserve her rights, she wouldn't do so
She still preserves her rights, because she didn't violate anybody else's rights.
Quote:
In some countries in the European Union, most "playing with life" has been banned, even with animals (surprise, we're not that savage anymore to care only about humans and our species)
"The law is subjective." Also, most countries in the European Union allow abortion. Also, the countries of the European Union have made many critical mistakes, so they're not that good of an example.
Quote:
I don't know how it's in America but from what I've seen it's barbaric and doesn't treat life very well, especially when it's not from our own species or for our benefit.
Look, I'm not against treating animals well, but I prefer the well-being of humans to the well-being of animals.
Quote:
Now you truly believe that whatever rights you violate (and are not accused) is "good" in the end... WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
Because 100 people are greater than 1 person (all other factors being the same).
Quote:
Why wouldn't you instead just leave it alone?
Because that'll result in the death of 100 people. So it's okay to leave 100 people to die, but not 1 person. Okay. 
Quote:
I used it only to explain to you that you don't have a clue except from your opinion -- you don't know how others are
Except that I have talked to others about this, and they've agreed with me.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 05:28 PM |
|
|
@Death:
Let me tell you that your analogies with "drag someone in" and "locking someone in the basement" are completely off from the main idea of abortion because:
1) You don't "drag" the fetus in, since it doesn't exist before conception.
2) You don't "lock" it in the "basement" since with abortion you actually get it out.
A much better analogy would be:
You create a human being (doesn't matter how) in the basement (let's say it can't feed itself). You kick it out of your house. You didn't do any "negative" actions against it (you didn't kill/beat/etc it) and thus it's not your problem that it dies outside because it cannot feed itself. Giving life, no matter the reason, is never negative, because the reason is never important, the action itself is! And giving life is definitely not a negative action. Let me explain why the reason is irrelevant, let's consider the following example: You see a beggar on the street, but you are selfish and don't want to give him any money, even though you are rich. However, you see that the media is around you and know that if you give money to the beggar, your reputation will increase. So you decide to actually give money to the beggar. Even though the thought was negative (you wanted to increase your reputation, not to help the beggar) the action was positive (you helped the beggar - doesn't matter why - help is still help). The beggar would be grateful to you as to one that helped him from kindness, the reason thus doesn't matter at all, help is still help. So you could say that you are not "good" at all because you did this only for you (to increase your reputation), but for the beggar you were "good" enough. So the thoughts (the reason) are actually pretty redundant unless some actions come from them.
If you still think that the thoughts are important let me tell you this: There's a guy that always wanted to steal cars, but he actually never did it (he's afraid to get caught or something). So, the thought is "evil" but the action is "neutral" until now (since he didn't do a thing). You can't say he is a thief because he never stole a car! So you see? The actions are in fact important, the reason is irrelevant (unless actions come from it - e.g. you want to steal cars and you actually do it). You get punished for your actions, not for your thoughts (even if the thoughts are evil).
So, the reason is irrelevant, the action is important, and since you don't do any negative action with the fetus (giving life is not considered negative no matter the reason, because remember, the reason never counts, and letting it to feed on its own is not considered a negative action either, since you don't actually prevent it from getting food), there's no point to illegalize abortion.
I don't care if you actually consider the above person that wants to steal cars "evil". He may be "evil" but he certainly is not immoral yet because he didn't steal any car. The point is, being "evil" has absolutely no importance, being "immoral" is the important thing. Not everyone follows the Bible, not everyone that has evil thoughts should be considered a "villain" and purged. What makes you think the Bible model is better than the society model and thus it should replace it?
And please, I'm really tired of quote wars, so don't even think to quote only parts of my post. You should reply with:
@Asheera:
blabla
if not, I'm telling you I won't take part in this discussion any longer. And I mean it.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 05:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hmm... No, I wouldn't say that. I'd say that the animal is inherently neither herbivore nor carnivore.
Obviously but there's no such thing as 'animal' when talking about herbivores or carnivores. In this context, you need to 'zoom in' to the properties, and see which kind of animal/life it is
Quote:
All right then, here's a different question: how are the fetus's rights violated?
By being there without its will
If you wouldn't have conceived it, it wouldn't be there and perhaps someone else would (let's say to make this more plausible that the other person extracts the egg and sperm and fertilizes it and then takes care of the baby).
Quote:
She still preserves her rights, because she didn't violate anybody else's rights.
She violated her own rights. If you are not used to this, you should come to some countries that have gained their senses on respecting life and not playing with it (i.e give life and then not care if it dies!)
Quote:
"The law is subjective." Also, most countries in the European Union allow abortion. Also, the countries of the European Union have made many critical mistakes, so they're not that good of an example.
No, I only pointed out that as an example. For me it makes very much sense that you lose your rights for something that you do (and that is not benefiting anyone -- e.g: conceiving the fetus, it actually harms the fetus by "being" there and dying). It's more common sense than "following the law"
Quote:
Look, I'm not against treating animals well, but I prefer the well-being of humans to the well-being of animals.
But that depends how you define "well-being" of humans. If we would have to choose between an animal and a human, obviously we choose the human. But if we want to be "tyrants" with animals (that is, our NEEDS always increase the more we have, the more we WANT!) then it's not ok.
Quote:
Because 100 people are greater than 1 person (all other factors being the same).
I meant, what is the difference between religious crusades (who also thought that 100 religious people are more worth than 100000000000 non-religious people) and you? You both do for what you think is more important.
The best way is to treat absolutely everyone equally, and not make "exceptions". This way no "preferences" or "favorites" will be influencing the system.
Quote:
Because that'll result in the death of 100 people. So it's okay to leave 100 people to die, but not 1 person. Okay.
From your opinion, I thought you didn't care about that, as long as you can't be sued -- that doesn't benefit you.
But then, what I meant is that, by not even being there, 100 people died. So in the end, if they don't and that 1 person dies, it's because of you. Otherwise you can't be blamed.
I'm not talking if it's better or not, I'm only talking about the fact that in the latter case, you are to be blamed for something. In the former case, you are not, since you can't be blamed for something you haven't done, right?
Quote:
Except that I have talked to others about this, and they've agreed with me.
Obviously, and some disagree (like me) -- that doesn't say a thing about how true it is
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 05:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Obviously but there's no such thing as 'animal' when talking about herbivores or carnivores.
Are animals inherently carnivores? No. Is life inherently negative? No. There we go.
Quote:
By being there without its will
But at the moment of conception, it doesn't have any will at all! So how can it be there against its will if it doesn't have one?
Quote:
If you are not used to this, you should come to some countries that have gained their senses on respecting life and not playing with it
Countries such as...?
Quote:
For me it makes very much sense that you lose your rights for something that you do
For me, it makes very mucch sense that you lose your rights for doing something negative to someone else. Which is not the case here.
Quote:
I meant, what is the difference between religious crusades... and you?
Because from an objective viewpoint, 1 person = 1 person.
Quote:
From your opinion, I thought you didn't care about that, as long as you can't be sued -- that doesn't benefit you.
Ah, but saving 99 people would have a great emotional benefit.
Quote:
Obviously, and some disagree (like me) -- that doesn't say a thing about how true it is
Yes, but you disagree with me about everything, so that's not saying much.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 05:42 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:47, 05 Jul 2008.
|
@Asheera:Quote:
Let me tell you that your analogies with "drag someone in" and "locking someone in the basement" are completely off from the main idea of abortion because:
1) You don't "drag" the fetus in, since it doesn't exist before conception.
2) You don't "lock" it in the "basement" since with abortion you actually get it out.
No you let it starve in the basement.
The basement is not analogous exactly to your body -- it's a combination of your womb and the fact that it cannot feed itself (thus can't go "outside" to feed itself).
Quote:
You create a human being (doesn't matter how) in the basement (let's say it can't feed itself). You kick it out of your house. You didn't do any "negative" actions against it (you didn't kill/beat/etc it) and thus it's not your problem that it dies outside because it cannot feed itself.
You must be joking, right? What do you mean by not being your problem? It's really simple, you know there's a word responsible, right? (talking about something like: "He is responsible for my daughter's death" not about responsibility).
You have created that human, this alone is an action you should not be allowed to do (because this will affect someone else). It's like putting a bomb somewhere. It doesn't explode yet, but the countdown has started -- you can be blamed even if it is disarmed, because the bomb would have affected someone else.
I'm not talking about violations, I'm talking about affecting someone's life, not necessarily positively. You give it life, that means you lose your rights to ignore it. Simple as that. Read my previous post please.
As for the beggar analogy, I have already explained that far too many times. It's not your business that he's a beggar. On the other hand, you are directly responsible for the fetus' situation. And you and only you are involved in it (don't bring up the apple analogy because there it would be the seller's involvement too).
Also see my analogy with the 'egg'
Quote:
Even though the thought was negative (you wanted to increase your reputation, not to help the beggar) the action was positive (you helped the beggar - doesn't matter why - help is still help). The beggar would be grateful to you as to one that helped him from kindness, the reason thus doesn't matter at all, help is still help. So you could say that you are not "good" at all because you did this only for you (to increase your reputation), but for the beggar you were "good" enough. So the thoughts (the reason) are actually pretty redundant unless some actions come from them.
There's a story
Quote:
If you still think that the thoughts are important let me tell you this: There's a guy that always wanted to steal cars, but he actually never did it (he's afraid to get caught or something). So, the thought is "evil" but the action is "neutral" until now (since he didn't do a thing). You can't say he is a thief because he never stole a car!
Only because we can't read someone else's mind
Quote:
So you see? The actions are in fact important, the reason is irrelevant (unless actions come from it - e.g. you want to steal cars and you actually do it). You get punished for your actions, not for your thoughts (even if the thoughts are evil).
So basically, you say that killing = bad action, right?
Then the reason for killing someone who would otherwise detonate a nuclear bomb is irrelevant -- thus the cops (supposedly) are bad and should be put to jail!! Because the guy did not detonate the bomb yet, he did not violate any rights. But in his thoughts, he was going to. So the cops should be put to jail, since the action was bad, killing someone who hasn't violated any rights, yet (much like in the case of the fetus, "the current time" is irrelevant if the future is bad).
Quote:
So, the reason is irrelevant, the action is important, and since you don't do any negative action with the fetus (giving life is not considered negative no matter the reason, because remember, the reason never counts, and letting it to feed on its own is not considered a negative action either, since you don't actually prevent it from getting food), there's no point to illegalize abortion.
There is because you play with his life -- it's a different kind of "right" that has been recently adopted in some countries in the EU.
Of course you can't understand this better system (IMO) which does not discriminate anyone and does not allow people to play with someone else's life, if you only look from your system's perspectives (i.e the standard "rights" system, you should expand that to include giving life as a special case, much like 'disease').
Also what about the other example with the disease. Suppose you have a disease and give it to someone -- this makes him grow 2 more arms.
That someone is mad and sues you. So is disease a negative action? fine
Now, someone else who got your disease is happy, he wanted more arms, thus disease is not a negative action anymore?
The reason depends, and the fetus most certainly doesn't want to starve! That is common sense!
Quote:
And please, I'm really tired of quote wars, so don't even think to quote only parts of my post.
Don't worry I share the same opinion about the quote wars
@mvassilev:Quote:
Are animals inherently carnivores? No. Is life inherently negative? No. There we go.
"Life" is ambiguous, please read what I said
If we go by your logic, we arrive at this:
Is animal carnivore? No.
Is animal herbivore? No.
Then what is it? How does it eat?
(supposing omnivores don't exist!)
Quote:
But at the moment of conception, it doesn't have any will at all! So how can it be there against its will if it doesn't have one?
It's against its will to be in your womb and starve, I'm not talking about conception, don't you get it? I'm talking after! And most certainly, it's not its fault that it is there!!! It is your fault.
Quote:
Countries such as...?
Those with "Animal police" for example (Romania is at the start of such a system, because we entered EU late, and it's also quite a 'poor' country)
because you consider animals property, which is banned to e.g: torture them or let them starve -- if you brought them from the wild that is.
Quote:
For me, it makes very mucch sense that you lose your rights for doing something negative to someone else. Which is not the case here.
See it like this:
1) The fetus is there without its fault, without its will (if someone doesn't have a will, then it's there without its will)
2) The fetus is there because of you.
Who do you blame in this scenario? Or are you saying we shouldn't blame anyone if it starves?
Quote:
Because from an objective viewpoint, 1 person = 1 person.
But what if 1 person is terrorist, for example? Or criminal? Or black? (I'm serious, people considered them 'filth', etc).
Quote:
Yes, but you disagree with me about everything, so that's not saying much.
I never said that what I say is true, but you are the one making such statements, not me
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 05:55 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 17:55, 05 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Don't worry I share the same opinion about the quote wars
Really, then why did you USE quote wars when I said I won't accept this
Now seriously, you completely missed the point in my post, you didn't even comment on the beggar and you giving money to him because you wanted to increase your reputation. I think this is the effect of the quote wars. You should try not to use them anymore, and you'll see it really makes a difference in understanding someone else's point.
But it seems you didn't listen to me. I told you not to reply with quote wars, yet you did. I'm out from this thread for good, unless the situation with the quote wars will be solved, but I really don't think it will be in the near future.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 05:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Really, then why did you USE quote wars when I said I won't accept this
I'm sorry I didn't think that 2-3 quotes were that bad. It's just a bad habit, I'll try to be cured out of it
Quote:
Now seriously, you completely missed the point in my post, you didn't even comment on the beggar and you giving money to him because you wanted to increase your reputation. I think this is the effect of the quote wars. You should try not to use them anymore, and you'll see it really makes a difference in understanding someone else's point.
The beggar example is a good one, and I don't think I can consider him 'good'. The reason for the action matters, but in this case, we can't talk about the law, since the law doesn't restrict anyone to increase his/her reputation, as far as I know.
Quote:
But it seems you didn't listen to me. I told you not to reply with quote wars, yet you did. I'm out from this thread for good, unless the situation with the quote wars will be solved, but I really don't think it will be in the near future.
Sorry again.
PS: don't take this reply again with quote-wars, I hope 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 06:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm sorry I didn't think that 2-3 quotes were that bad. It's just a bad habit, I'll try to be cured out of it
What I meant is that you should not quote only parts of one's post because you'll probably not understand his/her point - maybe that part would have a completely different meaning if you read the next part of the post.
It doesn't matter the number of quotes you use (but of course, the more the worse)
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 05, 2008 10:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is animal carnivore? No.
Is animal herbivore? No.
Then what is it? How does it eat?
Is animal always carnivore? No.
Is animal always herbivore? No.
You can't say that life is inherently negative unless most people suffered from having been given life. And everyone has unpleasant moments in their lives, but that doesn't make it inherently negative.
Quote:
It's against its will to be in your womb and starve
Then get it out of your womb.
Quote:
because you consider animals property, which is banned to e.g: torture them or let them starve -- if you brought them from the wild that is
I agree. We shouldn't be excessively cruel to animals, and disturb nature without reason. But animals are our food, but we don't have to be cruel about it.
Quote:
Or are you saying we shouldn't blame anyone if it starves?
That's exactly what I'm saying. You created the fetus there (it had no objections about it, as it didn't exist). Then you didn't want it, so you got it out. You have no obligation to feed it.
Quote:
But what if 1 person is terrorist, for example? Or criminal? Or black?
Well, if this one person violates other people's rights, then obviously that's different. But I mean that all other factors being the same, 1 person = 1 person. As for black people, they don't inherently violate anyone's rights, so I don't have anything against them.
Quote:
I never said that what I say is true, but you are the one making such statements, not me
You're the one saying that everything objective is subjective, and everything subjective is objective.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 01:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is animal always carnivore? No.
Is animal always herbivore? No.
You can't say that life is inherently negative unless most people suffered from having been given life. And everyone has unpleasant moments in their lives, but that doesn't make it inherently negative.
First of all, there is a difference between having "unpleasant" moments in life, and having the purpose of having ONLY unpleasant moments (that is, the purpose of a 'mistake' fetus is to be aborted!).
Secondly, I don't think you got my analogy. It's more like using to solve an ambiguity. For example, suppose that you have two keys, a green one and a blue one. Suppose that the green key open some kind of door, and you have a friend that is trapped there. Supposing that you don't know which key opens the door.
You come to him and say: "I have a key!"
At that moment, he is confused, there is an ambiguity. That is, not any key in the world will help him! Not all keys are the same, and saying that is pointless, unless you know what you're talking about. (that is, one can say "life" if it is known to be negative from the context).
He can reply: "Which one?"
And he is right, there is an ambiguity, since you pretty much did not provide and useful information to him, only one key in the world can open that door. If however you were to say: "I have a green key!" then the ambiguity is solved (supposing that only one green key exists in the world).
That is, you can't use "life" in statements unless the given meaning (ambiguity) is solved from the context. Thus, when we speak about fetuses to be aborted, we are talking not about "life" but about "negative life" because from the context, we know that is to solve the ambiguity. But we can just as well replace any "life" with "negative life" to solve the ambiguity, without necessarily using the context to find out the meaning.
Quote:
Quote:
It's against its will to be in your womb and starve
Then get it out of your womb.
But it will still be against its will to starve (and yes, it starves because of you, unlike a beggar, which you have absolutely no connection to).
Quote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. You created the fetus there (it had no objections about it, as it didn't exist). Then you didn't want it, so you got it out. You have no obligation to feed it.
Use common sense. Why does the fetus starve?
Because you decide not to feed him? Ok, but why does it starve in the first place? Because it's poor? Because it has a too long story to tell? Not at all, it's because you gave life to him. That is why you are directly responsible for his starving and life.
Quote:
Well, if this one person violates other people's rights, then obviously that's different. But I mean that all other factors being the same, 1 person = 1 person. As for black people, they don't inherently violate anyone's rights, so I don't have anything against them.
I meant, that they are terrorists or criminals, but have not violated any rights yet, but you somehow know they will (for example, the terrorists are preparing for something).
Secondly, what I meant was that in this case, if you flip the switch, you are then to be 'blamed' for doing something, that is one can sue you for that, even though the jury might be "reasonable". I don't imply that is the wrong or right thing to do, I'm only stating something.
If you were not to do anything, then you wouldn't have absolutely anything to do with it, thus you couldn't possibly be blamed/sued for something you have not done.
Quote:
You're the one saying that everything objective is subjective, and everything subjective is objective.
I actually say that anything subjective is subjective, and anything objective is somewhat subjective, but on a different level (i.e closer to objectiveness, even though it's still subjective in a way).
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 02:19 PM |
|
|
@Death:
I'm just curious what you'll do in the following situation:
Because of you, some people will die. However, you can choose 1 person to die, or 100. If you do not choose, all will die. What will you do
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 02:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because of you, some people will die. However, you can choose 1 person to die, or 100. If you do not choose, all will die. What will you do
How would I get into that situation (i.e because of me)? (first it doesn't have any relevance, but I'll reply anyway).
I'll try to fix the situation. If that 1 person does not want to die, honestly I wouldn't know what to do. I may save 100 lives but then people will absorb and call me an authoritarian every day (or I will call myself that way).
Basically it's similar to (but a bit better, the following is really worst):
You have 2 children. You love them all (yeah, really!), and let's say the are the same age. Now some criminal comes to you and says: "Pick one to die, or they will both die!"
Who would you choose? Random?
After you made your choice, look into the one who you pick's eyes, or look at yourself.
Very touchy subject  
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 02:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How would I get into that situation
Well, let's say you are a scientist and discovered something "important" and some terrorists found about it. They threaten you and want to kill some people (so those people actually die because of you), however you have the 1 person to die option, or 100. And if you don't answer, they'll kill all 101.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 02:49 PM |
|
|
I don't understand, do you mean they give me the option to choose between 1 or 100 people for what? To get their hands on my discovery?
I would give them whatever they need without killing anyone. Or did I misunderstand you?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 02:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't understand, do you mean they give me the option to choose between 1 or 100 people for what? To get their hands on my discovery?
Yes, but they still want to kill some people. You choose between 1 or 100, but if you don't want they'll kill all.
Damn, this is just a "fantasy" example, it doesn't have to be real. But I'm curious what you'll do in this situation
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 06, 2008 02:56 PM |
|
|
How can that be my fault then? If they want to just kill someone regardless of what I give them or tell them (I mean 'secrets' of what I discovered).
But most probably I will try to get out of it, that is find a way out, or are you saying that in the case they kill me, they also kill the 101 people?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
