611 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

YourFleshIsMine wrote...

Laws have loopholes so they're not always so well defined or written. It happens that the letter of the law gets in the way of the concept of justice, which is what laws were intended to preserver. The idea that laws are objective is not one you can really maintain, since laws are based on the norms and morals of either a majority of people or powerful politicians that sell laws to suit their purposes or those of their backers. Laws are definitely subjective because of that. They should be objective but they are not because we are not able of being objective no matter how hard we try. And anything that's written down has it's limitations and allows for interpretation. Even if laws were objective, which I do not believe, the application of said laws certainly isn't objective.

You said it yourself, there is no universal standard of good or bad and that actually proves that laws are not objective. In my view it would need to be a universal truth to be truly objective. But when you make a law that says you are not allowed to do something there is a reason why at least certain or most people think it's wrong. That can never be objective, it always involves personal feelings and opinions whether individually or as a society.

It's not that I don't agree with you, but you kind of just proved my point. 

What I'm saying is that as far as the law of the land goes, any law, statute, or even the amendments of the Constitution are written down and defined, thus making them the objective standard of the Sovereign state/territory/constituency that they reside in. Whether or not the law is morally or ethically objective is an entirely different matter that I do agree with you on.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

You know, Massively, I have an honest question for you.

I've been in a few situations in real life where you have a bunch of people discussing some radical idea or principle. Some idea that generally condemns some aspect of society or humanity and proposes something different. And it happens in all kinds of places with all kinds of topics. And I see these people just full of excitement, full of vigor. There's this very fervent atmosphere of revolution. Of power!

And you know what I notice? I notice that the minute they step out of the classroom or whatever, it vanishes. Vanishes into thin air. Immediately these very same people go right back to their routines, their jobs, their lives. It's just like night and day. These principals and ideas so excitedly discussed just a minute ago are not only forgotton, but very often completely contradicted.

What do you think my response to that phenomanon should be? When I look at that, what should I be thinking?

That average everyday people are sheep and that it is dangerous to publically vocalize one's views, no matter how well thought out and thorough their arguments because they face the ignorant majority that is usually to lazy to think for themselves or really understand critical thinking, logic, reason, persuasion, or the fact that things are bad because Jesus said so? People aren't willing to actually accept the Socratic method or question things? They just want their cake? People hold views that not everyone agree's with. Some do it to the extreme.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:14 .

[YourFleshIsMine]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

YourFleshIsMine wrote...

Laws have loopholes so they're not always so well defined or written. It happens that the letter of the law gets in the way of the concept of justice, which is what laws were intended to preserver. The idea that laws are objective is not one you can really maintain, since laws are based on the norms and morals of either a majority of people or powerful politicians that sell laws to suit their purposes or those of their backers. Laws are definitely subjective because of that. They should be objective but they are not because we are not able of being objective no matter how hard we try. And anything that's written down has it's limitations and allows for interpretation. Even if laws were objective, which I do not believe, the application of said laws certainly isn't objective.

You said it yourself, there is no universal standard of good or bad and that actually proves that laws are not objective. In my view it would need to be a universal truth to be truly objective. But when you make a law that says you are not allowed to do something there is a reason why at least certain or most people think it's wrong. That can never be objective, it always involves personal feelings and opinions whether individually or as a society.

It's not that I don't agree with you, but you kind of just proved my point. 

What I'm saying is that as far as the law of the land goes, any law, statute, or even the amendments of the Constitution are written down and defined, thus making them the objective standard of the Sovereign state/territory/constituency that they reside in. Whether or not the law is morally or ethically objective is an entirely different matter that I do agree with you on.

Ok then I see what you meant. 

[Rusty Sandusky]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You know, Massively, I have an honest question for you.

I've been in a few situations in real life where you have a bunch of people discussing some radical idea or principle. Some idea that generally condemns some aspect of society or humanity and proposes something different. And it happens in all kinds of places with all kinds of topics. And I see these people just full of excitement, full of vigor. There's this very fervent atmosphere of revolution. Of power!

And you know what I notice? I notice that the minute they step out of the classroom or whatever, it vanishes. Vanishes into thin air. Immediately these very same people go right back to their routines, their jobs, their lives. It's just like night and day. These principals and ideas so excitedly discussed just a minute ago are not only forgotton, but very often completely contradicted.

What do you think my response to that phenomanon should be? When I look at that, what should I be thinking?

That average everyday people are sheep and that it is dangerous to publically vocalize one's views, no matter how well thought out and thorough their arguments because they face the ignorant majority that is usually to lazy to think for themselves or really understand critical thinking, logic, reason, persuasion, or the fact that things are bad because Jesus said so?

Seeing as I attend a right-wing Christian school as someone with wildly different beliefs I have to say that this 'sheep' mentality is often used because people feel outnumbered and powerless to express their opinion and don't want to risk social rejection.

[Ravensword]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You know, Massively, I have an honest question for you.

I've been in a few situations in real life where you have a bunch of people discussing some radical idea or principle. Some idea that generally condemns some aspect of society or humanity and proposes something different. And it happens in all kinds of places with all kinds of topics. And I see these people just full of excitement, full of vigor. There's this very fervent atmosphere of revolution. Of power!

And you know what I notice? I notice that the minute they step out of the classroom or whatever, it vanishes. Vanishes into thin air. Immediately these very same people go right back to their routines, their jobs, their lives. It's just like night and day. These principals and ideas so excitedly discussed just a minute ago are not only forgotton, but very often completely contradicted.

What do you think my response to that phenomanon should be? When I look at that, what should I be thinking?

That average everyday people are sheep and that it is dangerous to publically vocalize one's views, no matter how well thought out and thorough their arguments because they face the ignorant majority that is usually to lazy to think for themselves or really understand critical thinking, logic, reason, persuasion, or the fact that things are bad because Jesus said so? People aren't willing to actually accept the Socratic method or question things? They just want their cake? People hold views that not everyone agree's with. Some do it to the extreme.

And David is the opposite of that. He will change the world w/ his awesome heroism.

[David7204]

You see Massively, you're exactly like them.

You read, and you come up with ideas, and you have this discussion on a nice, warm, safe internet forum where there are no consequences or implications to any opinion. You think you believe this. But you don't.

You don't.

Why don't you? Because a person who truly believed and understood that morality is based on nothing but opinion must also believe that morality and ethics (and more importantly, the consequences) are meaningless. And thus not bother with any notion or morality themselves. Because opinions alone don't have merit, if morality is based on nothing but opinions, it must be void of merit as well.

But you don't believe that. You've clearly become very emotional about numerous moral issues. It obvious to anyone who's seen a fair number of your posts. You make your speeches in the safe warm classroom, and they vanish when you step out.

Modifié par David7204, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:22 .

[David7204]

It's the exact same thing as all the countless people on the internet (and the BSN) gleefully advocating murder, genocide, ridiculous displays of power, and then go out in the real world and lead mild, unassuming lives. Because that's what happens, isn't it?

How can I take such people seriously?

I can't.

It's an interesting dilemma. Looking at the double lives we lead. Between what people say they think and are and what people actually think and are. We're all known people who are enthusiastic and talkative on the internet and quiet and introverted in real life. All variations of the same principle.

Modifié par David7204, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:29 .

[YourFleshIsMine]

David7204 wrote...

You see Massively, you're exactly like them.

You read, and you come up with ideas, and you have this discussion on a nice, warm, safe internet forum where there are no consequences or implications to any opinion. You think you believe this. But you don't.

You don't.

Why don't you? Because a person who truly believed and understood that morality is based on nothing but opinion must also believe that morality and ethics (and more importantly, the consequences) are meaningless. And thus not bother with any notion or morality themselves. Because opinions alone don't have merit, if morality is based on nothing but opinions, it must be void of merit as well.

But you don't believe that. You've clearly become very emotional about numerous moral issues. It obvious to anyone who's seen a fair number of your posts. You make your speeches in the safe warm classroom, and they vanish when you step out.

I find it interesting when you ask people about moral issues like murder or rape or whatever. I like to ask people why it is wrong or bad. I ask this because I think most people are sheep and follow laws because they accept that something is wrong without actually thinking about it. Is rape wrong? In my view yes, but I can also explain WHY I think it's wrong (and yes that's my opinion). Most people I ask that question can't answer why it's wrong and mistakingly think I am trying to convince them it's not wrong because they assume I ask why because I want to justify it. In fact I want them to think about it, because I think a lot of bad things happen because people make bad decisions under pressure and then they do need to answer why and can't. So they cross the line.

I do agree that morality is based on beliefs and opinions. There is no absolute truth. In old biblical times the prophets had many wives and concubines and now religions that believe in the bible are against polygamy mostly. I cannot rhyme those two but it just shows that morality changes and that things that were ok suddenly are not. So why did it change? We didn't discover any new truths but I think humans in any time in history tend to think they know better. Sometimes they might be right, sometimes not...but then, who am I to judge that? It's just a personal opinion.

[Rusty Sandusky]

David7204 wrote...

It's the exact same thing as all the countless people on the internet (and the BSN) gleefully advocating murder, genocide, ridiculous displays of power, and then go out in the real world and lead mild, unassuming lives. Because that's what happens, isn't it?

How can I take such people seriously?

I can't.

It's an interesting dilemma. Looking at the double lives we lead. Between what people say they think and are and what people actually think and are.

Alright then, David. If you think that you are not like the rest of us and you're views don't leave the 'comfort of a classroom'. I challenge you to go out onto the street, preach what you are saying, film it and put it on YouTube.  Maybe then we can take you seriously.

[David7204]

Username, you seem like a decently smart fellow. Surely you realize that 'preaching on the street' does utterly nothing to prove or disprove how real your views actually are. It certainly might mean you have a little more nerve, depending on how extreme the view in question is. But that's it.

[Astartes Marine]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Massively, when good things exist in this world, it's because people like me make them. I can assure you people care immensely about my standards. Because they're right. And they'd be right whether I believed in them or not.

When he addresses me by name, I get all tingly inside because I know that he's mad.

Holy ****.  I figured David was full of himself but I never expected that level.  That sounds to me like someone who's stuck so far up their own ass that they're actually in danger of choking on their own head.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:34 .

[David7204]

StreetMagic wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's the exact same thing as all the countless people on the internet (and the BSN) gleefully advocating murder, genocide, ridiculous displays of power, and then go out in the real world and lead mild, unassuming lives. Because that's what happens, isn't it?

How can I take such people seriously?

I can't.

Few of those people even want to be taken seriously.

I could find you plenty of posts of people demanding the option to kill various characters and defending genocide. With long, elaborate arguments. And it's certainly not just Mass Effect. If we're looking at video games, think of the people who defend Caesar's Legion from New Vegas. 

[Rusty Sandusky]

David7204 wrote...

Username, you seem like a decently smart fellow. Surely you realize that 'preaching on the street' does utterly nothing to prove or disprove how real your views actually are. It certainly might mean you have a little more nerve, depending on how extreme the view in question is. But that's it.

I didn't mean preaching like 'wearing a cardboard sign saying The end is nigh'. I meant that I want some (preferably video) evidence that you are not like the rest of us when you aren't acting all high and mighty on BSN.

[David7204]

YourFleshIsMine wrote...
Sometimes they might be right, sometimes not...but then, who am I to judge that? It's just a personal opinion.

So obviously, if someone mugged you, you wouldn't be angry or upset, then? Because who are you to judge what's right and wrong.

[Ravensword]

David7204 wrote...

Username, you seem like a decently smart fellow. Surely you realize that 'preaching on the street' does utterly nothing to prove or disprove how real your views actually are. It certainly might mean you have a little more nerve, depending on how extreme the view in question is. But that's it.

That's right, username. No one's views except David's are important

[Dextro Milk]

I'm so confused.

I just woke up and I have no clue what you guys are arguing about... lol

[David7204]

ThisOnesUsername wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Username, you seem like a decently smart fellow. Surely you realize that 'preaching on the street' does utterly nothing to prove or disprove how real your views actually are. It certainly might mean you have a little more nerve, depending on how extreme the view in question is. But that's it.

I didn't mean preaching like 'wearing a cardboard sign saying The end is nigh'. I meant that I want some (preferably video) evidence that you are not like the rest of us when you aren't acting all high and mighty on BSN.

That's too bad. You're not going to get a documentary of my life. And really, should it matter to you anyway? The principle is valid whether I adhere to it or not.

Believe me, I very much wish there was a quick and easy way to deduce character, perhaps even over the internet. But there isn't.

Modifié par David7204, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:43 .

[David7204]

No, you're just extending the argument. It leads to the same place.

Why would you be angry at being weak?

Modifié par David7204, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:44 .

[David7204]

And why is she thinking about that? Why is it human nature to know when you're victimized?

Modifié par David7204, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:47 .

[Jorji Costava]

YourFleshIsMine wrote...

I do agree that morality is based on beliefs and opinions. There is no absolute truth. In old biblical times the prophets had many wives and concubines and now religions that believe in the bible are against polygamy mostly. I cannot rhyme those two but it just shows that morality changes and that things that were ok suddenly are not. So why did it change? We didn't discover any new truths but I think humans in any time in history tend to think they know better. Sometimes they mightbe right, sometimes not...but then, who am I to judge that? It's just a personal opinion.

I actually go the opposite way on this. If morality is just a matter of one's personal beliefs, then I don't see how it's possible to make moral mistakes, since one is seldom in error about what one's moral beliefs are. If morality is simply a matter of what is believed by one's culture, then one could resolve moral dilemmas simply by consulting the moral views of one's culture: To be a "sheep" would then make one a paragon of moral reasoning. And if morality were simply an illusion, then the only mistake would be to engage in moral reasoning at all. That view has its defenders, but I'm not sure anyone here can count ourselves among them, given the prevalence of Geth/Quarian threads, debates about the genophage, etc. A consistent error theorist would respond to all of these threads by saying "Neither the Geth or Quarians were right because no one is ever right or wrong about anything. The whole concept of right or wrong is BS. /thread."

EDIT: Fixed quote

Modifié par osbornep, 14 septembre 2013 - 01:50 .

[David7204]

I'm really tired and need to get some sleep. I think this is going to have to wrapped up sooner rather than later.