|
| Thread: The Universal Off-Topic Discussion Thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 18, 2008 03:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I explained why (even with the deforestation example).
Quote:
Plants deserve to live. Deforestation, for example, is a form of greed, for profit. It's bad.
I am in awe of your clear explanation.  "It is so. I know it is so. I have said so, therefore it is so." Of course I'm not saying that deforestation is good, but I'm saying that it's not bad because it is "for profit".
Quote:
I repeat: And what does that have to do with objective morals?
You said that usefulness has nothing to do with objective morals. But is something that makes people feel good not useful? Therefore, the greatest "feeling good" for the greatest number is good. But you disagree, because you say that "feeling good" has nothing to do with whether an action is good. But then, I ask, what exactly is the purpose of your system of morals? What does it do? How does its being objective make it better than my moral optimalist system?
Quote:
morals are not about HOW USEFUL your actions are gonna be (productive or whatever).
Then what are they for?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 09:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"I was saying that a subjective morality system is impossible" -- WHERE DO YOU GET THIS FROM? From MY posts?
Yeah.
Specifically from this:
Quote:
You care because you want a subjective view that satisfies your needs. I want to create matter too!
Quote:
Objective morals are DISCOVERED. They require a lot of analysis from neutral POVs obviously, like God mode, or anything similar. Of course they are not 100% objective because not even science itself is 100% objective. Subjective morals are CREATED.
Discovered how? 
You've just sat there and stated that you are taking a god-view (which of course you are not) and stated that THIS is what would happen from a god-view.
You didn't 'discover' anything.
In fact, your system was more likely CREATED for D&D
But oh well there's not anywhere where we can go with this so I'll just drop it.
Quote:
You can have as many subjective morals as you want, if you want. It's easy. But there is only one objective morals.
Yeah, and we'll never ever know what they are.
We have to make do with subjectivity.
Until we die, maybe
While you could argue that the more objective the better (but we will never know ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE MORALS), I would disagree I would say the more USEFUL the better but hey that's where we disagree again and we can leave it there.
Another point dropped 
Quote:
Yeah go back to the plant argument which we discussed already. Why do I reply if in the next page you'll repeat that "I think that..." same claim?
I'm allowed to state my opinion, aren't I?
I'm also bringing in more points and developing my opinion, as are you, only you seem to nut up about it every time I mention something
I added things such as you claim to be taking a god view and not favour any species yet you supress plants because they can't do arbitrary action X.
But you seem to think that's fine so I'll drop it.
Another point done.
Quote:
And animals, like I said, are "innocent" but obviously my posts are meant for the Space Monkeys, not for people on this forum, to read. Or so it seems.
You don't know the mind of an animal, you are in no position to make this claim.
And stop with the whole "don't read you post thing". I read your posts, and reply to them, and if I don't agree with them then you seem to take that as ignoring them
You can't just state something wrong as an answer and expect that to be fine...
Quote:
"Important" and "usefulness" are subjective of course. What I meant was that usefulness has nothing to do with objective morals. (you also forgot to mention in the disease that it is an "aggressor", plus the fact that it is similar to plants).
Microorganisms aren't necessarily the agressors. I'm talking about wiping them out just because they have the potential to harm.
And the plants issue I think that's absurd from a god-view but yeah we don't agree so that's fine.
I'll drop it.
(trying to cut down this massive argument that seems to be causing you so much stress)
Quote:
What one prefers or not is subjective. I prefer objective morals. I'm being subjective -- but that doesn't make the morals subjective of course. Objective morals don't FORCE anyone to do something, that's the LAW's job, which is subjective based on society models. Objective morals are more like philosophy, they put you to think.
What I meant by forcing someone to do something is that they will become "more good" by doing something.
Of course morals can't come down and grab onto someone and make them do it
For example, the vampire becomes "more good" by killing himself.
Subjective morals are philosophy.
Humans philosophize and try to come up with the best subjective morality system.
Philosophy might include talking about an objective morality system but it's everyone subjective views on it so actually finding the objective morals through philosophy is fruitless.
Quote:
"No reason"? It's called justice, for what he has done. It's the DEFENSE of the person that died, but has not the opportunity of doing it. I already explained this countless times. Can we drop it, the defense thing i mean?
Yeah we can drop it if you want.
I'll just say that that's not objective at all. It's subjective how much punishment per action etc. and harming something from a god-view is never a good thing. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind
However from a SUBJECTIVE SOCIETY BENEFIT perspective it's fine because it warns others against committing that crime in the future.
However I struggle to see how objectively it can be good to punish someone in such a way which benefits no one and changes nothing except for inflicting more pain/suffering on that person.
The net change in the universe is a negative change in happiness levels, and that's it
Anyway, we're dropping it.
Quote:
Quote:
No, that's different again
That's buying, not getting given something for no reason
Stop changing my example!
Ah, so selling drugs is ok by you?
Yes, of course it is.
But you just answered my question with another question
You're good at postponing this!
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 01:53 PM |
|
|
@mvass:Quote:
I am in awe of your clear explanation. "It is so. I know it is so. I have said so, therefore it is so." Of course I'm not saying that deforestation is good, but I'm saying that it's not bad because it is "for profit".
Meh. It is clear that we are going in circles because YOU never take in account what I say previously, except only the last post, and probably you WANT to find flaws in my text, just for the sake of arguing. 
I explained in the other threads (or even in THIS one, at the beginning) that there is a thing called balance. Will I explain it here? Absolutely not. I learn from mistakes. It was a mistake for me to explain it in the first place -- look now you don't even know I explained it already, see? Probably you'll forget everything I wrote here after a week or so.
Quote:
You said that usefulness has nothing to do with objective morals. But is something that makes people feel good not useful? Therefore, the greatest "feeling good" for the greatest number is good.
Ok, but what has usefulness got to do with objective morals? How many times must I ask this question?
Quote:
Then what are they for?
Classification, philosophy, realizing objective attributes about yourself. You either follow them or don't, that's not my concern. I don't want to force evil people to not be evil.
If a person asks: "Why shouldn't I be selfish?" -- because if he philosophizes about it he realizes that it's objectively bad in the end, or at least not good, since selfish means most times at the expense of something else (and objectively, "something else" is not less important than "your self"). Of course there will be selfish people. So what? That's what evil is for.
If you want enforcement use the LAW. Did Jesus force anyone, for example, to follow him? Not at all. But of course mvass, all you can think about, is force.
@TA:Quote:
Yeah.
Specifically from this:
Quote:
You care because you want a subjective view that satisfies your needs. I want to create matter too!
And what does that have to do with it? 
That means: Subjective STUFF is made to PLEASE US. It is CREATED to PLEASE US. Is is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE. You said that I meant it is impossible, which is completely opposite of what I meant, therefore I don't see your point.
When you DISCOVER stuff, you also discover stuff that does NOT necessarily please you. It's just that.
Quote:
Discovered how?
You've just sat there and stated that you are taking a god-view (which of course you are not) and stated that THIS is what would happen from a god-view.
You didn't 'discover' anything.
In fact, your system was more likely CREATED for D&D
Look. Subjective: You think that what you do to survive is "good". Why? Because it PLEASES you. That is, you WANT it to be that way. It's hard to accept, for example, that we are going to die tomorrow. We just CREATE stuff to PLEASE us, much like you use arguments in religions (that they created "Heaven" and all that for comfort), of course for some reason you can't understand in this discussion, since you disagree here, but don't in God discussions.
I discovered it with IMAGINATION. You see, you place a bunch of NUMBERS. That's right, NUMBERS. Unless you are irrational, there's no point in having "affection" towards a number, therefore you don't favor any specific number. If you had a race, and you had 3 cars with 3 numbers and that's it, then you have no emotions, no feelings towards them.
What you can do then, is OBSERVE them. You observe how they move. You observe who wins. You observe if a particular number hits another in attempt to pull it off the race. We call that dishonor. It is OBJECTIVE. It is DISCOVERY. It is not CREATED to PLEASE the one who watches.
Subjective morals do not even require any OBSERVATION (through imagination, but heck how can I make you observe a simulation on a message board, give me a break!).
Quote:
While you could argue that the more objective the better (but we will never know ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE MORALS), I would disagree I would say the more USEFUL the better but hey that's where we disagree again and we can leave it there.
Indeed. The "better" is subjective as well, and again I said that FOR ME it is "better" the more objective it gets.
My whole point was to show that absolute morals exist and are pretty valid, and we can know 90% of them (that is, not 100% objective mind you). However, whether or not they are 'better', whatever that means, is on the individual. Personally I like objectiveness more. That doesn't matter since that wasn't my point to being with.
I'm feeling like I wrote this for the fifth time.
Quote:
I'm allowed to state my opinion, aren't I?
I'm also bringing in more points and developing my opinion, as are you, only you seem to nut up about it every time I mention something
I meant something like this:
"I think that giving drugs is bad because..."
"It's not because..."
"I think that giving drugs is bad because..."
something like that
Quote:
I added things such as you claim to be taking a god view and not favour any species yet you supress plants because they can't do arbitrary action X.
But you seem to think that's fine so I'll drop it.
See above about balance. That's what an apple is for, for example. Of course, being overly-greedy, as i pointed out, breaks the balance. In which case, it is bad. But I explained this in other threads (where you, unfortunately, did not participate so I don't know if you read them at all) 
Quote:
Subjective morals are philosophy.
Humans philosophize and try to come up with the best subjective morality system.
Subjective morals, however, are a philosophy that are made to PLEASE us, to please our actions, etc. Objective morals are philosophy that make us THINK "outside the box" of our own existence, so to speak.
Quote:
I'll just say that that's not objective at all. It's subjective how much punishment per action etc. and harming something from a god-view is never a good thing. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind
Agreed about an eye for an eye. The punishment need not necessarily include the SAME stuff as he has done. If he tortures, you are not supposed to torture him back, IMO. But stop him or punish him in a way as to prevent it, even if he never does anything bad again! (that's justice)
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 01:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
See above about balance. That's what an apple is for, for example. Of course, being overly-greedy, as i pointed out, breaks the balance.
What's this "balance"? It is clearly something made up from your subjective system, since other people may find it different
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 02:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What's this "balance"? It is clearly something made up from your subjective system, since other people may find it different
Oh no please NOT THIS AGAIN. Like I said I already explained it in another thread. Not to mention, look OBJECTIVELY, the natural ecosystem, and how we humans have ruined "the balance". I don't know the precise SCIENTIFIC term for that, so sorry if I can't point you links 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 02:02 PM |
|
|
"The natural ecosystem" - why do you think that's objective?
How do you know that how it is now, "ruined" by humans, is not a "balance"?
What makes you think that the humans "ruined" it and the animals not? What makes you think it was a balance in the stone age?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 02:04 PM |
|
|
Look it up.
Or look that thread where i explained it up
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 02:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I explained in the other threads (or even in THIS one, at the beginning) that there is a thing called balance.
"Balance" is an idealized concept. In reality, even without humans there is no balance in nature. There are forest fires, prarie fires, desertification, etc. Even climax communities have some sort of variation with time. There is no "balance" in nature - nature is in a state of flux. And why is this so-called "balance" a good thing in itself?
Quote:
selfish means most times at the expense of something else
Wait, what? If the farmer exchanges food for tools with the blacksmith, both can be as selfish as they want - but both will be better off.
Quote:
"something else" is not less important than "your self"
That doesn't make any difference. Each individual is only one individual. When they suffer, they suffer. When they die, they die. It's not going to make any difference to me if I think, "I die, but everyone else is alive." We are not "objectively equal". We are ourselves. It's like a diseased person saying "I'm terminally ill, but there are a lot of people who aren't terminally ill, so everything is all right."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 02:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And what does that have to do with it?
That means: Subjective STUFF is made to PLEASE US. It is CREATED to PLEASE US. Is is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE. You said that I meant it is impossible, which is completely opposite of what I meant, therefore I don't see your point.
Well you shouldn't be so misleading then
Normally when people say "You want X? Yeah, well I want to go to the moon!" or in your case "create matter" or something impossible unlikely it means that X is not possible too.
Quote:
Look. Subjective: You think that what you do to survive is "good".
No, I actually don't (necessarily). But I'll let it slide...
Quote:
Why? Because it PLEASES you. That is, you WANT it to be that way. It's hard to accept, for example, that we are going to die tomorrow. We just CREATE stuff to PLEASE us, much like you use arguments in religions (that they created "Heaven" and all that for comfort), of course for some reason you can't understand in this discussion, since you disagree here, but don't in God discussions.
You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of my arguments in both threads if that's what you believe 
Where did I disagree with this statement?
That's twice in this one post you've put words into my mouth.
Quote:
I discovered it with IMAGINATION.
LOL
just lol.
What do you think "create" means...
Quote:
You see, you place a bunch of NUMBERS. That's right, NUMBERS. Unless you are irrational, there's no point in having "affection" towards a number, therefore you don't favor any specific number. If you had a race, and you had 3 cars with 3 numbers and that's it, then you have no emotions, no feelings towards them.
Ok, sounds fine to me.
Let's start:
Black people... 1
White People... 2
Monkeys... 3
Bacteria... 4
Plants... 5
1 and 2 are completely equal and any discrimination between them is not only absurd (they're just NUMBERS!), but is RACIST...
but no numbers 4 and 5 don't deserve to live... who cares about those numbers
Quote:
What you can do then, is OBSERVE them. You observe how they move. You observe who wins. You observe if a particular number hits another in attempt to pull it off the race. We call that dishonor. It is OBJECTIVE. It is DISCOVERY. It is not CREATED to PLEASE the one who watches.
Then apples are the most honorable race
Quote:
Subjective morals do not even require any OBSERVATION (through imagination, but heck how can I make you observe a simulation on a message board, give me a break!).
They don't require it, no.
But they can have it.
For example, a morality system that I believe is reasonable is based on my observations.
Your one is based on your observations (or imagined observations)
Quote:
Indeed. The "better" is subjective as well, and again I said that FOR ME it is "better" the more objective it gets.
Quote:
My whole point was to show that absolute morals exist and are pretty valid, and we can know 90% of them (that is, not 100% objective mind you).
Nice statistics.
I would say you know <1% of them. You base it heavily on the rational thinking of the animals but you don't even know how ANYONE thinks except for humans... for starters...
Quote:
However, whether or not they are 'better', whatever that means, is on the individual. Personally I like objectiveness more. That doesn't matter since that wasn't my point to being with.
I'm feeling like I wrote this for the fifth time.
You are writing it again.
No one asked you to.
I explained my opinion on the matter (for the first time), while you have stated it a few times to mvass etc, but now when I state mine you've repeated yours.
In fact you just repeated what I stated yours is...
anyway
point is don't get mad at me I'm not making you repeat anything
i KNOW you prefer objectivity in this case.
Quote:
I meant something like this:
"I think that giving drugs is bad because..."
"It's not because..."
"I think that giving drugs is bad because..."
something like that
When did you ever say "it's not because"
I said
"I think that giving drugs is bad because..."
".... taking away drugs is bad."
"but what about giving drugs?"
"refusing to sell drugs is bad."
"but what about giving drugs?"
"STOP MAKING ME REPEAT MYSELF"
Quote:
Subjective morals, however, are a philosophy that are made to PLEASE us, to please our actions, etc. Objective morals are philosophy that make us THINK "outside the box" of our own existence, so to speak.
Pleasing us is what I'm all about
I prefer to be happy than right any day...
a quote you might be familiar with
Quote:
Agreed about an eye for an eye. The punishment need not necessarily include the SAME stuff as he has done. If he tortures, you are not supposed to torture him back, IMO. But stop him or punish him in a way as to prevent it, even if he never does anything bad again! (that's justice)
yeah but then it becomes up to the punisher to decide the punishment (subjective)
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 02:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are writing it again.
No one asked you to.
I explained my opinion on the matter (for the first time), while you have stated it a few times to mvass etc, but now when I state mine you've repeated yours.
Death always does that. Everytime 10 people state their opinions and don't share it with Death's opinion (which is in 90% of the cases), he has to write his opinion 10 times
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 02:52 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:55, 18 Sep 2008.
|
@mvass:Quote:
"Balance" is an idealized concept. In reality, even without humans there is no balance in nature. There are forest fires, prarie fires, desertification, etc. Even climax communities have some sort of variation with time. There is no "balance" in nature - nature is in a state of flux. And why is this so-called "balance" a good thing in itself?
Does it matter whether it is "good" or not? Point is, you can't be guilty of inaction. Break balance --> you're guilty of it. Since nature is, by itself, "innocent", then it doesn't apply the other way around.
Don't ask me "how do I know" because if you go by that, I'll ask the same about flying pink unicorns.
And I won't respond to your other quotes since they ripped apart what I wrote.
@TA:Quote:
LOL
just lol.
What do you think "create" means...
Oh. That's good. So if you OBSERVE, for example, dinosaur bones, and you use IMAGINATION to "discover" the LIVING CREATURES, does that mean you created them, much like we can create tooth fairies, right?
God-view is a thing. I use imagination just to apply numbers to species. Of course, you can always use a virtual simulation if you feel more comfortable than THINKING about it instead (like imagining it). I'll tell you something in advance: the result is THE SAME.
Quote:
Ok, sounds fine to me.
Let's start:
Black people... 1
White People... 2
Monkeys... 3
Bacteria... 4
Plants... 5
1 and 2 are completely equal and any discrimination between them is not only absurd (they're just NUMBERS!), but is RACIST...
but no numbers 4 and 5 don't deserve to live... who cares about those numbers
Uhm, firstly for such a system you would need to have no idea about which is black and which is white, since that could get you biased. Nevertheless let's assume you don't. But they aren't simple numbers. You have to look into their innocence, for example, as in the case of monkeys. In the case of number 5, we see them as inactive and they have developed to keep the balance!
Or rather let's say the animals developed to use the "apples" for example, as food. It went neutral because animals are innocent, and plants are neutral. A plant will not turn into a monkey like an egg, for example. Both are alive, but different kinds of.
Next step would be to say that "water" is number 6 and can't be consumed
Quote:
Then apples are the most honorable race
Only if they KNEW what they are doing, but they can't even think
Are you following this (the stuff with being aware of what you do and "innocence" and all that blabla I've been writing for the past 4 pages)? This is a very important concept (even outlined in D&D rules btw! which are somewhat simplistic compared to the real absolute morals). Without it you have a flawed system, as you pointed out, because in fact it is this that makes the connection.
Quote:
They don't require it, no.
But they can have it.
For example, a morality system that I believe is reasonable is based on my observations.
Your one is based on your observations (or imagined observations)
Indeed, there is a degree of subjectivity to each
Quote:
Nice statistics.
I would say you know <1% of them. You base it heavily on the rational thinking of the animals but you don't even know how ANYONE thinks except for humans... for starters...
I detailed this previously and it took me like 20 minutes (in another thread).
You forgot that I am the one who also claims that "aliens" may be completely different than us, and I still take them as thinking or valid. Or Mars can be hospitable to AIs, which I also consider thinking and life, even though you don't. So I actually have a wider definition of thinking and life than you do
Quote:
Pleasing us is what I'm all about
I prefer to be happy than right any day...
a quote you might be familiar with
Hmm interesting, however than can easily lead to abuse, tyrantship and whatever-not. For example, from that simple quote, a tyrant is also "happy".
Quote:
yeah but then it becomes up to the punisher to decide the punishment (subjective)
As you well know me, the punishment is left to God, so I don't think it's the punisher who decides, apart from simply doing whatever it takes to STOP him (assuming he does it again). Sometimes killing him is necessary though I prefer it as a last resort myself. I don't call this "punishment", I call it "defense" or future-defense (tip: think outside the box ).
EDIT: Oh and btw, here's for example a SIMPLISTIC description of the "innocent" thing or "guilty" or "awareness". That's only the tip of the iceberg. Do you REALLY expect me to write so long, just so in 1 month you make another thread with your original claims?
I hope you can see why I don't bother detailing my answers.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 02:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh. That's good. So if you OBSERVE, for example, dinosaur bones, and you use IMAGINATION to "discover" the LIVING CREATURES, does that mean you created them, much like we can create tooth fairies, right?
Yes, you created the living creatures using your imagination. However, because you observed the bones first, that "creation" may be true.
However, you don't observe morals, that's silly
____________
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 02:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, you don't observe morals, that's silly
It is called psychology.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 02:59 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:59, 18 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
However, you don't observe morals, that's silly
Of course since you're completely off the point. You observe behaviors of the SPECIES, which isn't hard to imagine a number that makes actions right?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 03:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh. That's good. So if you OBSERVE, for example, dinosaur bones, and you use IMAGINATION to "discover" the LIVING CREATURES, does that mean you created them, much like we can create tooth fairies, right?
I'm not going to argue over words lol.....
Quote:
You have to look into their innocence, for example, as in the case of monkeys. In the case of number 5, we see them as inactive and they have developed to keep the balance!
Yeah but you can't look into their innocence because you are not them and you are not god.
Also, plants keeping balance is just a human idea.
Hell, balance is a human idea
Quote:
Both are alive, but different kinds of.
Hey, I was just talking about numbers...
Quote:
Next step would be to say that "water" is number 6 and can't be consumed
No, water isn't alive.
Putting words into my mouth again
Quote:
Only if they KNEW what they are doing, but they can't even think
Says you.
Quote:
You forgot that I am the one who also claims that "aliens" may be completely different than us, and I still take them as thinking or valid. Or Mars can be hospitable to AIs, which I also consider thinking and life, even though you don't. So I actually have a wider definition of thinking and life than you do
Irrelevant really.
It's no less human than my view...
(unless you are less human than me )
Quote:
Hmm interesting, however than can easily lead to abuse, tyrantship and whatever-not. For example, from that simple quote, a tyrant is also "happy".
matter of opinion really
the quote doesn't really say that... look at Richard III, he is unhappy
i would say that happiness is separate to abuse, and that if abuse is in one's nature it is irrespective of happiness.
but I'm not stating that one sentence is a complex morality system
Quote:
As you well know me, the punishment is left to God, so I don't think it's the punisher who decides, apart from simply doing whatever it takes to STOP him (assuming he does it again). Sometimes killing him is necessary though I prefer it as a last resort myself. I don't call this "punishment", I call it "defense" or future-defense (tip: think outside the box ).
Isn't the example where he doesn't do it again
And you defined 'defense' as being entirely separate to 'justice'
And we're (supposed to be) talking about 'justice' so whether or not he does it again is irrelevant.
this is simply punishing for crimes done and gone just to make that person feel worse for doing it and regret it
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 03:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not going to argue over words lol.....
Yeah but that's the "imagination" I meant
Quote:
Yeah but you can't look into their innocence because you are not them and you are not god.
Also, plants keeping balance is just a human idea.
Hell, balance is a human idea
Not so sure about it tho. I refrain from writing detailed replies because they get trashed and into oblivion anyway. See the link above. It is a VERY SIMPLISTIC objective approach to it, even though it's more detailed than my posts, so you can see the difficulty i have in explaining this to every detail right?
As for balance, sure there is one. I'm sure everyone knows what "disturb" means and I hope you don't deny that it's objective?
Quote:
Hey, I was just talking about numbers...
Of course, but you have to look at their personalities and actions. If a number is "mind controlled" for example then we can't call it 'evil' even if it is evil, since we don't know it's own intent. You have to analyze the numbers. The thing is, you don't have to look at their "physical" appearances or anything similar to have emotions or other stuff like that.
Quote:
No, water isn't alive.
Putting words into my mouth again
Different degrees of life, in water's case, it's 0. It matters. That was my point. I never said you think water is alive.
Quote:
Isn't the example where he doesn't do it again
Irrelevant for justice
This is justice, in this case. If he does it again, it's defense. Two things. Hope it's clear now.
BTW: as you can see I tried to cut down on the amount of quotes 
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 04:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ah, so selling drugs is ok by you?
It means that it will not be a part of the black market aka controll and low prices and decent quality is doomed to happen.
It could save alot of money, since now the users will get stuff that is not of bad quality, and the bad quality will usually cause alot of trouble.
Add on it will not be that it costs alot of money anymore, so it wont be 500kr a package from the dealers that usually are of semi-bad quality that means risks and worse. Also this means it cannot be used in a illegal way, like a dealer demanding favors instead of money for the drugs(go and kill that person, be my sexslave, stuff like that).
So i think it got a high % chance of being a benefit to the society in comparision to what it tends to be now.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2008 10:39 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Point is, you can't be guilty of inaction.
You also can't be guilty if the action you are performing isn't bad.
Quote:
Break balance --> you're guilty of it.
You can't really talk about breaking balance, since it isn't there in the first place.
Quote:
I'm sure everyone knows what "disturb" means and I hope you don't deny that it's objective?
It's extremely vague and subjective.
TA:
Quote:
No, water isn't alive.
"You're applying your subjective view of what life is to something that may be alive but doesn't fit your defintion." [/TheDeath]
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 19, 2008 06:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As for balance, sure there is one. I'm sure everyone knows what "disturb" means and I hope you don't deny that it's objective?
Balance of what?
The universe is constantly becoming more disordered as time passes.
Balance implies some kind of higher purpose of the universe, and regardless of whether there is one or not none of us can even begin to say that they know what it is so they can't say what disturbs the balance.
Change is not necessarily disturbing, and if something is not really meant to be anything specific changing it doesn't matter.
Also this links to fate and the possible illusion of choice
Not really part of this discussion.
Quote:
Of course, but you have to look at their personalities and actions. If a number is "mind controlled" for example then we can't call it 'evil' even if it is evil, since we don't know it's own intent. You have to analyze the numbers. The thing is, you don't have to look at their "physical" appearances or anything similar to have emotions or other stuff like that.
Kinda defeats the point of assigning them numbers then...
Quote:
Irrelevant for justice
This is justice, in this case. If he does it again, it's defense. Two things. Hope it's clear now.
Yeah but what purpose does punishing him (if he's not doing it again, i.e. "justice") serve?
Who does it benefit?
All it does is restrict someones freedom. That makes the punisher just as bad as the criminal, doesn't it?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 19, 2008 01:59 PM |
|
|
@mvass:Quote:
You also can't be guilty if the action you are performing isn't bad.
Exactly. Note that the difference between "good" and "evil" here depends upon the target's consent or agreement or whatever. You can be guilty "in a negative way" or "in a positive way". An evil person that hates happiness and wants to bring suffering to everyone will BLAME you for being helpful, thus blaming you for "positive actions".
Remember also the innocent thing: if you KNOW that a certain thing tips someone off, and you show it to him on purpose, then you are 'evil'. If you didn't know, the action itself is neutral (meaning it doesn't change your "status" or whatever).
Quote:
You can't really talk about breaking balance, since it isn't there in the first place.
You know what? I'm not going to also discuss with you how nature works and preserves and all that stuff. Suffice to say that as long as you DO something that changes "the large scheme of things" (you know very well what that means: example, if you build a sand castle, it won't affect the large scheme of things; if you make a black hole at CERN (), you affect the "large" scheme of things; if you make a supernova that destroys the Solar System, you affect even more scheme of things; if you can't see the OBJECTIVE difference here then there's no point in discussing this anymore). As long as you DO something, you can be guilty of it.
Quote:
It's extremely vague and subjective.
"to interfere with the arrangement, order, or harmony of; disarrange"
Not very vague now is it? Of course, we all "interfere" since for example, we all breathe. But there are different degrees of disturbance. See above how the different "disturbing" factors are from something insignificant to something as large as affecting the whole Solar System.
Just because something is not white doesn't mean it's BLACK lol. If something is 99% white it doesn't have to be black. It's not "all or nothing" principle here. I thought I already said that it's not black & white.
Quote:
"You're applying your subjective view of what life is to something that may be alive but doesn't fit your defintion." [/TheDeath]
Strangely enough I am the one that tries to evade this thing in this discussion because I'm tired of it
@TA:Quote:
Balance of what?
The thing that goes on WITHOUT OUR INTERFERENCE. Like I said, we just call it "balance". It means that with which we don't interfere with. It's not black & white. There are different degrees of "interference" or "disturbance". 99% white doesn't mean black. 
The universe is becoming disordered? Well at least you can't be BLAMED for that, since it's not an action you have performed. And yes change is not necessarily disturbing like I said, but the bigger it is, the more CHANCES are that it does affect a larger degree.
Quote:
Kinda defeats the point of assigning them numbers then...
No. Look at it like a car race for example. You just have numbers. Plain numbers, defining the cars, no visual aspect ("OMG that looks so cool" or anything else like that). Then, you see number one hitting 2 to get it off the race. That's what I meant by analyzing their "personalities". From this respect, you know that number 1 is dishonorable.
The reason we assigned numbers is this: it's not dishonorable because it's number 1 and you don't like that number. It's dishonorable because of what it did OBJECTIVELY, not because YOU hate that number or any other subjective crap
That's the point.
Quote:
Yeah but what purpose does punishing him (if he's not doing it again, i.e. "justice") serve?
Who does it benefit?
All it does is restrict someones freedom. That makes the punisher just as bad as the criminal, doesn't it?
Justice is just justice. It doesn't always "serve" anything. Regarding the LAW, it may act as an example to others.
And of course it restricts that criminal's freedom AFTER he restricted freedom. That makes it either defense, or simply justice (if he won't do it again).
|
| |
|
|
