|
| Thread: The Death - I suggest a challenge |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted July 25, 2008 01:50 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:45, 25 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
But I am not imposing my values on you.
Oh great so if you see a guy imposing values on someone else (like even killing him, and DON'T START with the law/society or non-aggression principle, because I disagree with them), you should let him do it? 
Quote:
"TheDeath hate people! TheDeath think people evil! TheDeath want live up to namesake! TheDeath would sit under a tree and sing Kumbaya, but the guitar would be fashioned through violence against trees!"
Uh, I don't hate people if they are responsible and not greedy. I didn't say all people are evil. And they wouldn't be if they wouldn't impose their values on the things around them. By the way, the tree example might be a bit better than the rock example, but still doesn't work in principle. But I do know you will return with the breaking rock example, even though I explained it to you like 5 times already, it seems as if I waste my time on writing (even though I know you READ it, but somehow you don't even take it in account)
Quote:
Oh, and one more thing. To understand why I called the elves evil, I suggest you read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". A brilliant book.
Completely subjective selfish book. I suggest you use more "neutral" viewpoints and absolute/objective perspectives if you want to have superior arguments.
EDIT: Don't make mistake, I did not read it (only your summary and some comments on the net i googled), but if it truly says that a race which was as in my example elves CAN possibly be "evil" from a neutral viewpoint, I don't think I'm gonna mess with that idea. Simply put, to understand it from a neutral viewpoint, you have to put yourself in a "Creator" (not necessarily God) viewpoint. Also "evil" is quite a harsh term. Even though you may think they're foolish (evil always says good is foolish ), that doesn't mean they're evil 
Also again, I doubt that you would consider someone who is easily seduced (by its instincts) having superior arguments than another. Or claiming that we should allow to be "seduced" is better?
(btw: I think you have gotten a bit too personal on OSM debates  )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 05:31 PM |
|
|
TA:
Yes, it is. 
William:
...
JonasToo:
Maybe I should.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Oh great so if you see a guy imposing values on someone else (like even killing him, and DON'T START with the law/society or non-aggression principle, because I disagree with them), you should let him do it?
You should do it because of society and the non-agggression principle. If you don't agree with it, then I can't tell you.
Quote:
By the way, the tree example might be a bit better than the rock example, but still doesn't work in principle.
But a tree is a living thing, so wouldn't killing a tree, according to you, be just like killing an animal?
Quote:
Completely subjective selfish book.
Just try reading it. About half of the people that read it don't like it, and the other half think that it's absolutely brilliant. Of course, I fall into the second category.
Quote:
if it truly says that a race which was as in my example elves CAN possibly be "evil" from a neutral viewpoint, I don't think I'm gonna mess with that idea
Just try reading it before making judgements like that.
Quote:
Also "evil" is quite a harsh term. Even though you may think they're foolish (evil always says good is foolish ), that doesn't mean they're evil
They are foolish, but not evil, if they live this way. They are evil if they try to force other people to live this way.
Quote:
btw: I think you have gotten a bit too personal on OSM debates
Yeah, I suppose so.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 05:40 PM |
|
|
Have you returned to Quote Wars?
Even though the thread was not very successful at keeping the "banned" words alone, it still was in term of quotes. You blew it up.
A tree is more like a plant. There are some specific "needs" one might have, but not over-exaggerate (actually that is pretty well defined, if you'll take the time to read my other posts in OTHER threads; i.e the difference between some "needs" and "greed"). I'm not saying also that we need not kill any animals or plants (let's say for food), obviously I prefer the latter (vegetables, which includes agriculture among all). But there's a fine line between greed and needs (at least from my point of view, which i explained over the course of most other threads).
Again, I did not read the book, so my claims here might not be 100% accurate, nevertheless I have read a lot of comments from people who knew what they're talking about. Obviously some disagreed with them, but that's life.
Quote:
They are foolish, but not evil, if they live this way. They are evil if they try to force other people to live this way.
Well there depends on how much the "others" influence something else. For example, if the others want to be emo and kill themselves (with a consensus, not forcefully), then the elves won't impose anything at all on them -- at best they will only try to make them understand that they're doing something bad to themselves, but by no means will they STOP them.
If, however, they decide to burn down a forest, for example, then it's a whole different matter since it doesn't involve only themselves, you see? 
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 05:42 PM |
|
|
grin:Thank you guys! you just killed a small to medium-sized cat!
I hate you
 Now iz okay 
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 06:04 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Everything we've posted between the point where I said that I'm done with Other Side philosophical discussions and the point where I start again doesn't count.
So you think it's okay to kill animals, as long as it's not for greed. So you really don't support them being equal.
Quote:
Again, I did not read the book, so my claims here might not be 100% accurate, nevertheless I have read a lot of comments from people who knew what they're talking about. Obviously some disagreed with them, but that's life.
Unless a book is incredibly boring, it's a lot better to actually read the book instead of reading what people said about the book. And I assure you, "Atlas Shrugged" is not a boring book.
Quote:
If, however, they decide to burn down a forest, for example, then it's a whole different matter since it doesn't involve only themselves, you see?
Well, it involves the elves too, since it creates pollution, etc.
DagothGares:
Doubleposter!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 06:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you think it's okay to kill animals, as long as it's not for greed. So you really don't support them being equal.
No. It never is "ok". Just because, for example, you have to choose between 100 people and 1000 does not mean that killing 100 people is ok?? (in your opinion, since you already said that you WILL choose the 1000 in this situation).
Without any remorse, or any kind of guilt, it will lead to "yeah, it's ok to kill animals!!!" or even "it's ok to kill 100 people!" (were it not for your subjective non-aggression principle).
Quote:
Well, it involves the elves too, since it creates pollution, etc.
Ok, let's suppose it doesn't, because you know I could find a different example, but what's the point if you already know what I meant?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It never is "ok". Just because, for example, you have to choose between 100 people and 1000 does not mean that killing 100 people is ok??
No, what I meant was that you don't support them being equal with humans. Let's say that you are starving, and you are presented with a choice: kill and eat a cow, or kill and eat a human. Which would you choose, and why? Because from your perspective, it seems like it doesn't matter which one you pick.
Quote:
Ok, let's suppose it doesn't, because you know I could find a different example, but what's the point if you already know what I meant?
It also contributes to global warming, etc. So it's a bad example.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 06:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, what I meant was that you don't support them being equal with humans. Let's say that you are starving, and you are presented with a choice: kill and eat a cow, or kill and eat a human. Which would you choose, and why? Because from your perspective, it seems like it doesn't matter which one you pick.
Actually that's similar to asking which to save: 1 or 2 people? Obviously an animal =/= 1/2 of a human, since it's a lot more complex than that, but "it matters" if you had to choose between an animal and a human, choosing the human. This doesn't mean you wouldn't have any remorse or 'guilt' that you'll have to accept. It's not like it was a pleasant thing, you know. Saving the 2 people instead of the 1 isn't a pleasant situation either, don't take it lightly.
What I don't like is when this becomes a habit. Just because sometimes it is needed in dire situations it does not mean it's "ok" to do it as a habit, or taking it lightly.
Quote:
It also contributes to global warming, etc. So it's a bad example.
Alas you already know what I meant.
Ok, then a different example: those emo guys decide to make the animals around them suffer. This is a whole lot different, and the elves wouldn't impose anything on the emos as long as they don't impose it on something else either.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 06:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Obviously an animal =/= 1/2 of a human, since it's a lot more complex than that, but "it matters" if you had to choose between an animal and a human, choosing the human.
So you don't think that they're equal. I see. You say that all life should be treated equally, but apparently not.
Quote:
Ok, then a different example: those emo guys decide to make the animals around them suffer. This is a whole lot different, and the elves wouldn't impose anything on the emos as long as they don't impose it on something else either.
Well, the elves should certainly discourage the emos from doing so, but unless the animals are any of their (the elves') property, then they shouldn't take any physical action to stop it. Who are they, PETA?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 06:46 PM |
|
|
The animals are not "yours" either, so leave them alone
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 07:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you don't think that they're equal. I see. You say that all life should be treated equally, but apparently not.
Am I repeating myself? Does that mean that a human life is ok to go away, because you had that choice to save 2 people? It doesn't mean that the respective life is "less important", it's just a dire situation.
And again, it should not become a habit or taken lightly. It's more like an emergency, when there's no other choice (some can argue that there is always a choice). It wouldn't be call emergency if it happened every day
Yes I think a human life is more important as long as it's not a tyrant -- which means that he is "proud" of being more important. You should never be proud of "dire" situations and choices, and not without remorse.
Quote:
Well, the elves should certainly discourage the emos from doing so, but unless the animals are any of their (the elves') property, then they shouldn't take any physical action to stop it. Who are they, PETA?
Oh and as Asheera said "They aren't the property of the emos either", and your "might makes right" (in this context -- claiming property) is so flawed I wouldn't even start. I mean, "property" is defined a bit too subjective -- according to human needs. It's why it fits so conveniently to our model, since it's something that ONLY WE benefit from -- and it's why it's flawed, subjective, and shall I say, selfishly defined?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 07:48 PM |
|
|
Asheera:
Yes, that's a good point. I mean, if it's not their forest, then they certainly can't burn it down. And the animals aren't mine, then I can't kill them. Simple as that.
TheDeath:
Quote:
It doesn't mean that the respective life is "less important", it's just a dire situation.
But if it's a dire situation, and you have to choose, then, unless you're picking randomly, you're going to pick the life that is less important.
Quote:
It's why it fits so conveniently to our model, since it's something that ONLY WE benefit from -- and it's why it's flawed, subjective, and shall I say, selfishly defined?
So you agree with Proudhon's statement that "property is theft"? Then we have nothing further to discuss.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 07:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But if it's a dire situation, and you have to choose, then, unless you're picking randomly, you're going to pick the life that is less important.
Again I repeat myself. It's important that you know it is less important, but that doesn't mean you have to be proud of your "importance" because that leads to tyranny. It's also important that this DOES NOT BECOME a routine "job" or something that's taken lightly. Just because there are a few dire situations doesn't mean you have to extend that principle more than is necessary!
Quote:
So you agree with Proudhon's statement that "property is theft"? Then we have nothing further to discuss.
I don't know anything about that really.
Oh and btw: when Asheera said that the forest is not emo's I think she meant that NATURE can't just be "claimed" as yours. Oh, and besides, you can't "own" something like life or balance. Just because a mother gave life to a child doesn't mean she "owns" him or that he is her property, you see?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 08:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's important that you know it is less important
How can you say that they're equal and then say that they're less important? That'd be like a white guy saying, "You know, I'm not a racist, but if I had a choice between saving a black guy and a white guy, I'd save the white guy, because his life is more important." Of course, since you're the one equating my attitude to racism... See, if you take my subjective-objective view, then this question doesn't even arise, because the very idea of "discrimination against animals" is ludicrous under my system.
Quote:
I don't know anything about that really.
But you hate the concept of property, no?
Quote:
you can't "own" something like life or balance
Correction: you can't own human life.
Quote:
Just because a mother gave life to a child doesn't mean she "owns" him or that he is her property, you see?
That's true, but the child is certainly human. Now, if she bred a cow that she owns, then the calf is certainly hers.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 08:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How can you say that they're equal and then say that they're less important? That'd be like a white guy saying, "You know, I'm not a racist, but if I had a choice between saving a black guy and a white guy, I'd save the white guy, because his life is more important." Of course, since you're the one equating my attitude to racism... See, if you take my subjective-objective view, then this question doesn't even arise, because the very idea of "discrimination against animals" is ludicrous under my system.
Seriously, I think I explained this like 5 times already
Yes a white guy will most probably choose his family/race (if he likes that) over a black guy. He might even choose his son over 100 people, for example. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE 100 ARE LESS IMPORTANT. OR THAT THE GUY IS NOT "EQUAL". Now, with "food" (killing) it's a different matter. Life is equal as life. But when you need to choose between an animal and a human, you know you're going to choose the human.
It's also important that you are not PROUD of that or of your importance. They are not equal in the sense as how we 'choose' them (just like in the family example). Now, killing an animal would of course be marking them as not equal -- but that's in this context. Killing them for luxury is  -- the idea is that you need to not be proud of it as if it is a routine job, and have some remorse about it. It's not like it's something that is to be taken lightly, such as your computer monitor just broke, it's a lot more serious.
Quote:
But you hate the concept of property, no?
No, I actually hate the standard or "human" concept of property. You see, in my view, we are nature's property. How did the first man got property in the first place? You said he simply claimed it -- that's what I disagree with
But anyway what you said (and used quote wars) below that proves that our discussion was completely worthless. I mean I don't expect you to change your views, but not repeat the same arguments which i already replied to before. "is certainly hers" is one example, just as is "human life" of what i explained countless times subjective rulz (actually, my explanations were a lot more detailed with arguments, but I won't repeat them again for like the 10th time).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 10:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes a white guy will most probably choose his family/race (if he likes that) over a black guy. He might even choose his son over 100 people, for example. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE 100 ARE LESS IMPORTANT. OR THAT THE GUY IS NOT "EQUAL".
Several things here. It's one thing to choose one's son over a hundred people, but it's entirely another to choose a white guy you don't know over a black guy you don't know. You see, one has an emotional connection to one's family, but not to random people one's never met. Also, if you would choose a human over an animal, that means that you don't think that their lives are equal, because if you did think so, then you would not be able to make a conscious choice about it. You would only be able to pick randomly.
Look at it like this. Let's say that you're drunk, and driving a car at a high speed. Then you see two identical people that you don't know walking close to each other. If you swerve, you will hit one of them. If you keep driving, you will hit both of them. It's too late to brake. So, which way do you swerve? Now imagine that one of them is black and the other is white. What do you do then? And what if one of them is human and the other is a dog? What then? The cases in which you would pick randomly, you consider their lives equal. The cases in which you decidedly swerve in a non-random direction, you don't.
Quote:
You see, in my view, we are nature's property.
Then what, may I ask, did nature do to get that property? After all, if a mother has a child, she doesn't own it. So if nature creates us, why should it own us?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 10:14 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:16, 25 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Several things here. It's one thing to choose one's son over a hundred people, but it's entirely another to choose a white guy you don't know over a black guy you don't know. You see, one has an emotional connection to one's family, but not to random people one's never met. Also, if you would choose a human over an animal, that means that you don't think that their lives are equal, because if you did think so, then you would not be able to make a conscious choice about it. You would only be able to pick randomly.
Well first of all, I'm more attached emotionally to humans (not tyrants), who said I'm perfect?
BUT what is important is that they are not equal, even not about life -- they, for example, are innocent, we are not. For one, obviously this doesn't mean anything about life, but it does mean they are different. Just because they are different doesn't mean we can abuse them (you know what tolerance means? I'm surprised). Of course, in the dog example, I would choose the human, obviously.
I am arguing when this becomes a routine job. That is, the above scenario with the drunkness should be avoided as much as possible. It's not like it's a pleasant thing, and I should not take it lightly either (the dog's 'sacrifice' so to speak). What annoys me is when people become tyrants and make this a part of their "job", you see?
Oh, and by the way, if I kill the dog, I should be sentenced (because I WAS drunk and it was MY fault)
Quote:
Then what, may I ask, did nature do to get that property? After all, if a mother has a child, she doesn't own it. So if nature creates us, why should it own us?
Well first of all, we are its property because we are "part" of it. But I agree, this is not a good argument. Thus, we are not its property, but neither is it ours.
The idea is, nature might not have done "anything" to get that property, but we didn't either, unless you think that a child can "own" a mother (no, not at a RTS game ). This works both ways you see?
EDIT: sorry fixed my post
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 10:23 PM |
|
|
This thread is now completely devastated... It turned into another Quote War between TheDeath and mvass...
Oh, and mvass, don't get personal in these discussions. Do you think that the posts here in the Other Side will change the world? Come on, these should be more like "peaceful" debates, there's absolutely no need to get personal (other than to stress yourself)
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2008 11:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course, in the dog example, I would choose the human, obviously.
But wouldn't the dog have a higher chance of being innocent?
Quote:
Oh, and by the way, if I kill the dog, I should be sentenced (because I WAS drunk and it was MY fault)
I don't disagree here.
Quote:
The idea is, nature might not have done "anything" to get that property, but we didn't either, unless you think that a child can "own" a mother
But the child is, more or less, just like the mother. How can a person own another person? But nature, on the other hand, is an abstract concept. Certainly people are not abstract concepts.
Asheera:
Quote:
This thread is now completely devastated... It turned into another Quote War between TheDeath and mvass...
We're taking a break from organized discussion. We'll return to it later.
As for the rest of what you said, duly noted.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 26, 2008 02:27 AM |
|
|
You both lose
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
| |
|
|
