|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 18, 2008 05:09 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
What I was saying was that your "society" ideas are nothing more than a typical government (that supposedly rules out the entire planet).
ITT: No reading comprehension. Read this part again:Quote:
On the other hand, far more of the people make up society than they do the government. Society is more representative of the people than any government. But while society can establish a government, that is not the extent of its powers. You see, what can a government do? It can reward by giving subsidies or catching criminals, and it can punish through fines, incarceration, or death, if the crime is severe enough. But there are some things the government can't do, while society can. For example, in America, the government can't stop you from torturing animals (as far as I know), but society can strongly discourage it, and raise people that don't like to torture animals. The government shouldn't make abortion illegal (but let's not make this topic about abortion), but society should discourage and frown upon abortion, to minimize it. And so on.
Moonlith:
Quote:
Because he is 16 and knows best
Ad hominem attack. Also, there are philosophers and economists who agree with me. I'm not the only one in the world who thinks this way. (Alarming as this may be for you  )
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 06:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
ITT: No reading comprehension. Read this part again:
Dude, don't you get what I say? Whatever you say about "society" is the same as a politician speaking. That is, you are some form of "virtual" government and wish to extend your beliefs about what's in the benefit of this "society" to others. The problem is that every politician thinks like that. Nationalists use the term "nation" instead of "society", but it's really no more subjective. Whereas some consider that communism is for the "betterment of society" -- who are you to say that your model about it is the best? It's really what all serious politicians claim. Your model is no better than so-called governments (albeit, people elected them as well), but this doesn't mean that the governments are better. In short, it's subjective. And you have no better reason to claim yours is superior.
I have, since I seem to be one that extends this to every being and thus not make exceptions.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 07:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Whatever you say about "society" is the same as a politician speaking.
Except that the politician's motive is simply to get elected, and he/she will lie if he/she has to. What is my motive? 
Quote:
That is, you are some form of "virtual" government and wish to extend your beliefs about what's in the benefit of this "society" to others.
Society is not a virtual government. It isn't a government at all.
Quote:
Nationalists use the term "nation" instead of "society", but it's really no more subjective.
Except that the term "nation" excludes people from other countries who are exactly the same. I don't exclude people.
Quote:
who are you to say that your model about it is the best?
Who are you to say that it isn't?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 08:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Except that the politician's motive is simply to get elected, and he/she will lie if he/she has to. What is my motive?
Well I was thinking along the lines of more serious "politicians" like Hitler/Stalin (let's not say that they were 'evil', only to point out that they thought that what they do is "for the better of the society" or nation, whatever).
Quote:
Society is not a virtual government. It isn't a government at all.
Are you even listening to me? Society is not a "virtual government", I agree, but your ideas are, about what it is to be a "good" society, or the "betterment" of society. Those ideas, about how society can live off better, etc... those are politician ideas (Virtual government so to speak).
Look, society is only one. But I have my own ideas about how it's supposed to work, and you have your ideas -- that means we are two virtual governments with our ideas. In your posts, you imply as if your ideas are universal and accepted as objective truth, while in fact they're nothing more than (your version of) politics.
Obviously I tried to give arguments as to why my view is better, in the sense that it does not make any exceptions. That is, nationalists make exceptions for people outside their nation (or black people). Your view makes exceptions for non-humans. So if we consider yours an improvement, then mine is even better, since it makes absolutely no exceptions or favors no specific group (by definition, since people are bound to break it anyway).
Quote:
Except that the term "nation" excludes people from other countries who are exactly the same. I don't exclude people.
No, but you exclude non-humans. In short, both make exceptions. You can't bring a "difference-o-meter here" so it will remain that way, subjective with holes in it.
Quote:
Quote:
who are you to say that your model about it is the best?
Who are you to say that it isn't?
My phrase was meant to be in context. If you take it out like that, we'll arrive at a childish conversation:
"Oh rly?"
"Ya rly!"
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 09:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well I was thinking along the lines of more serious "politicians" like Hitler/Stalin (let's not say that they were 'evil', only to point out that they thought that what they do is "for the better of the society" or nation, whatever).
GODWINS LAW STRIKES AGAIN!!! Well, maybe they were also just seeking their own self-interest (although they maybe they were insane). They were evil because it negatively impacted others.
Quote:
Those ideas, about how society can live off better, etc... those are politician ideas (Virtual government so to speak).
How so?
Quote:
Your view makes exceptions for non-humans. So if we consider yours an improvement, then mine is even better, since it makes absolutely no exceptions or favors no specific group (by definition, since people are bound to break it anyway).
Do I need to explain why I disagree again?
Quote:
No, but you exclude non-humans. In short, both make exceptions.
But humans in America are more or less just like humans in Canada, or humans in China, or humans in Zimbabwe. You can't say the same thing about non-human animals.
Quote:
"Oh rly?"
"Ya rly!"
"No wai!"
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 09:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
GODWINS LAW STRIKES AGAIN!!! Well, maybe they were also just seeking their own self-interest (although they maybe they were insane). They were evil because it negatively impacted others.
Dude, I wasn't talking about their "evilness", I was talking like this:
Hitler: "It's good for society to exterminate Jews, they are garbage anyway.. it's good for Germany!" and blabla...
you say the same about other species or nature. It doesn't have anything to do with evil in this example, just a simple comparison of politics, to prove to you that your views are also political
Quote:
But humans in America are more or less just like humans in Canada, or humans in China, or humans in Zimbabwe. You can't say the same thing about non-human animals.
Actually, from your view, they are the same. You see, from e.g: a racists' view, they are not. From my view, animals are living beings too, thus they are the same in that respect (because for me, life = has rights). Your view doesn't make exception for black people, but makes for nature. Let's say that Mr.X's model doesn't make exceptions for animals, but makes for black people. See where I am getting? The so-called "difference" between these is only in your view. You can call Hitler mad because he thought Jews are filth, but Mr.X can also call you mad because you think animals are property, for example.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 10:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hitler: "It's good for society to exterminate Jews, they are garbage anyway.. it's good for Germany!" and blabla...
Hitler was a Nazist, if he was not a nazist and had started 2nd World War........... i think he would have won it to.
He did however fix alot of the problems in pre-WW2 germany, he also promised to do se when being elected.
Wanna talk about Stalin? I think this is enogh to cover him "Everybody is after/wants to kill me!"
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2008 11:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
you say the same about other species or nature
No, I don't. Jews and blacks aren't fundamentally different from everybody else in the way that animals are.
Quote:
Actually, from your view, they are the same. You see, from e.g: a racists' view, they are not.
So, racists are wrong!
Quote:
Your view doesn't make exception for black people, but makes for nature.
It's not an exception. If you think that it's an exception, you haven't been paying attention.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 01:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, I don't. Jews and blacks aren't fundamentally different from everybody else in the way that animals are.
"Fundamental difference" is in the eye of the beholder (or rather politician)
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, from your view, they are the same. You see, from e.g: a racists' view, they are not.
So, racists are wrong!
Sure, but you are wrong too, from my system's view. Your system accepts black people, mine does too. Your system doesn't "accept" nature (you know what I mean; e.g: enslaving it), mine does. So if we take this as a pattern, where each gets a step, we find something like this:
Racist system < mvassilev system < TheDeath system
Quote:
It's not an exception. If you think that it's an exception, you haven't been paying attention.
Again, racists don't consider black people an exception either, you have to look from outside the box 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 02:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Fundamental difference" is in the eye of the beholder (or rather politician)
But think about it. There really isn't any fundamental difference between Jews, blacks, and whites. Indeed, there is more variation within the races than there are in between them. Compare that to all living things. I don't think that humans are very much like paramecia, are they?
Quote:
Your system doesn't "accept" nature (you know what I mean; e.g: enslaving it), mine does.
My system is the system of ultimate rights for individuals. Don't tell me that nature is an individual.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 03:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But think about it. There really isn't any fundamental difference between Jews, blacks, and whites. Indeed, there is more variation within the races than there are in between them. Compare that to all living things. I don't think that humans are very much like paramecia, are they?
Actually, everyone "stops" at a difference. Racists stop at the color difference, which they think it matters. You stop at the species difference, which you think it matters. But if we follow the flow of logic, and stopping at higher and higher differences, we find out that my system is the best (since it stops at an even larger difference, more than species!).
Quote:
My system is the system of ultimate rights for individuals. Don't tell me that nature is an individual.
Actually it depends on who uses them. Racists have the system of ultimate rights for white individuals (heck some don't even consider black people as "individuals", you see?). Now, who is to say that stopping at individuals is the best thing to do? Again, if we follow the pattern in here, we observe that including a larger and larger group is a better system (since racists, for example, are inferior to your system). Therefore mine is better.
As for the "enslaving" part of black people, really, I think that added a lot to the 'white society', and was a lot more 'good' for it than otherwise (ask a white person in the past), so your statement that we need to do what's good for society doesn't hold.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 03:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You stop at the species difference, which you think it matters. But if we follow the flow of logic, and stopping at higher and higher differences, we find out that my system is the best (since it stops at an even larger difference, more than species!).
The species difference is the most important because you can more or less deal and interact with other humans as you can with yourself. Can you deal with bears or paramecia?
Quote:
Again, if we follow the pattern in here, we observe that including a larger and larger group is a better system (since racists, for example, are inferior to your system).
Look at it like this: rich white individuals of noble birth who supported the King -> rich white individuals of noble birth -> rich white individuals -> white individuals -> individuals. But I don't see that going beyond individuals.
Quote:
As for the "enslaving" part of black people, really, I think that added a lot to the 'white society', and was a lot more 'good' for it than otherwise (ask a white person in the past), so your statement that we need to do what's good for society doesn't hold.
Well, I disagree, since it was bad for society to exclude blacks from it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 03:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But I don't see that going beyond individuals.
See? That's one of your flaws. You're too narrow-minded.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 05:23 PM |
|
|
Yeah, but I don't see it going beyond individuals. I mean, the qualifier for individuals keeps decreasing until it's eliminated, but they're still individuals. I mean, it's ____ ____ individual -> ____ individual -> individual, but how does it go beyond that? Inidividual -> [empty space]?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 05:34 PM |
|
|
[empty space] = every living creature, human and non-human, has more right to the use of its own body than anyone else has to use it
____________
"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
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 05:44 PM |
|
|
But society is what creates rights. And society is made up of human individuals making rights for each other. Why would they make rights for animals?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 05:47 PM |
|
|
|
Because not everyone is selfish as you think. Call it emotional benefit, doesn't matter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 06:12 PM |
|
|
As I said, I've talked to numerous people, and they've agreed with me.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 06:19 PM |
|
|
|
Why not? A lot of people agreed with Hitler too (again I am not saying anything about the "evilness" of Hitler, I'm only choosing him as a 'dictator' example, politician that is different from you, but no better nor lesser).
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 19, 2008 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why not? A lot of people agreed with Hitler too (again I am not saying anything about the "evilness" of Hitler, I'm only choosing him as a 'dictator' example, politician that is different from you, but no better nor lesser).
You know, Hitler was a Nazi and a dictator. If somebody was against him and his agenda, sendt of to be executed or to become slaves.
And he used the hate left by World War 1 to increase his controll and dictatorship. And most people who did not look after it, never knew about the Jews. The Nazi's even planned to hide their crimes in clever ways like destroying the gass chambers and the graves. Lucky they did not succed.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
