1005 réponses à ce sujet

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Yet you are the one with the narcissistic "My mere existence proves my belief is reality!".... nothing you've said has proven anything other than you'd plumb the worst depths if you somehow think that the end is worth it.  You actually argued rape and murder are fine as long as you believe the goal merits it....... all I need to know.

 

They are. Any end is worth any action if you place enough value in it.

 

And yes, my existence does prove my assertion of reality. Can you tell me how it doesn't?

 

You're not doing much support for your perspective, only condemning me now for mine.

 

All you've done is make a moral-high-ground fallacy here.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Why do all these discussions end in talk about morality?

 

Because people think they have everything figured out.

 

I don't, even when I say I do. I have things figured out for me, and I don't view morality as black and white, nor do I view it as grey. It's a rainbow. Morality is rainbow.

 

Mine's red.

[Iakus]

It absolutely does, and your assertion otherwise proves your own lack of reconciliation with any more than your own.

 

Read my signature: By what right does the wolf judge the lion?

Personally I aspire to be more than a mere animal.

 

But that's just me

[Iakus]

Why do all these discussions end in talk about morality?

 

Because some people take the renedouche philosophy way too seriously.

[AlanC9]

Yet you are the one with the narcissistic "My mere existence proves my belief is reality!".... nothing you've said has proven anything other than you'd plumb the worst depths if you somehow think that the end is worth it. You actually argued rape and murder are fine as long as you believe the goal merits it....... all I need to know.

We should probably leave rape out of this. It's difficult to construct a hypothetical where rape is necessary for some worthwhile end. Murder's easy enough to work with, though. I can think of plenty of situations where killing one person would lead to a better tomorrow. Say, a crazed dictator who's about to launch a devastating war.

You'd rather millions die rather than one person be murdered?

[AlanC9]

Why do all these discussions end in talk about morality?

That's what the game was designed to do.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Because some people take the renedouche philosophy way too seriously.

 

Some people take the paragon holier-than-thou attitude too seriously.

 

The renedouches at least have a much higher practical success record than the paragon ones. They tend to be the ones history looks on kindly.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Personally I aspire to be more than a mere animal.

 

But that's just me

 

As do I. But what makes you think that you are more than a mere animal? By what right does the man judge the man?

 

Ask the Catalyst. He gets it right.

[Kabraxal]

Some people take the paragon holier-than-thou attitude too seriously.

 

The renedouches at least have a much higher practical success record than the paragon ones. They tend to be the ones history looks on kindly.

Except when that philosophy produces HItler's and Mao's and Stalin's.... 

 

As for your proof about moral relativism.. hate to break it to you, but your existence isn't so great it proves a moral reality.  The fact you believe it does is really starting to show some worrying signs here...

[Iakus]

double post 

[Iakus]

That's what the game was designed to do.

 

Then Bioware got their wish in the most monkey's paw manner possible

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Except when that philosophy produces HItler's and Mao's and Stalin's.... 

 

As for your proof about moral relativism.. hate to break it to you, but your existence isn't so great it proves a moral reality.  The fact you believe it does is really starting to show some worrying signs here...

 

Induction of Godwin's Law. Your point is invalid. Even then, I can list off many things they got right.

 

As for your argument, you still have yet to provide one. All you've done is make a denial of my claims and express how worried you are that I really believe it. And that translates to possible fear of reality. Make an argument, or accept my point. I'm prepared to counter any you have, but I look forward to the discussion.

[Kabraxal]

Induction of Godwin's Law. Your point is invalid. Even then, I can list off many things they got right.

 

As for your argument, you still have yet to provide one. All you've done is make a denial of my claims and express how worried you are that I really believe it. And that translates to possible fear of reality. Make an argument, or accept my point. I'm prepared to counter any you have, but I look forward to the discussion.

Except those three all claimed to be doing what they did for the greater good with goals set... you just don't like it because this time those examples aren't straw men, but applicable points against your claims.   Think we are starting to see the cracks in the "arguments" you are trying to make now.  

 

And it's quite simple as a reason your existence proves nothing about morality.. just because you believe in relativism doesn't mean you are right.  Just means you could be mistaken and your beliefs are simply wrong.  I know i know, you're going to come back with a weak claim of some sort to simply hand wave it away.  I mean, you haven't even argued for why your existence means anything about a moral reality and are just stomping your foot and saying it's so.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Except those three all claimed to be doing what they did for the greater good with goals set... you just don't like it because this time those examples aren't straw men, but applicable points against your claims.   Think we are starting to see the cracks in the "arguments" you are trying to make now.  

 

And it's quite simple as a reason your existence proves nothing about morality.. just because you believe in relativism doesn't mean you are right.  Just means you could be mistaken and your beliefs are simply wrong.  I know i know, you're going to come back with a weak claim of some sort to simply hand wave it away.  I mean, you haven't even argued for why your existence means anything about a moral reality and are just stomping your foot and saying it's so.

 

Actually, there is a very real argument against the Godwin's law, hence why I called it and claimed invalidity. Just as my philosophy had people who claimed its use for their ends, so does yours. That seems to be more of an argument against the people rather than the philosophy. The 'cracks' so to speak are your invention. And you still haven't provided a counter-argument to my philosophy and argument, only a side-step to me personally. That's not a proper foundation to an argument. Otherwise, you'd have to claim that environmentalism and animal welfare and consideration is immoral since Hitler supported it, and that industrial growth is immoral since both Stalin and Mao championed it. That's a cherry pick right there.

 

Not to mention that you didn't define how their association with the philosophy invalidates it. That's guilt by association, a discredited legal standing.

 

Doesn't it? What makes me incorrect? You have to define the objective line and stance of your morality. Where is the great big line that says 'do not cross ever, ever'? I'm saying that my existence and belief in such confirms it because, to be frank, it does. I don't see the value or morality to having a philosophy such as yours. You have to bring about why I'm wrong in your argument, not just claim that I am because you want me to be. How is morality objective? Who and what decides what is and isn't good always and forever and that any action made that is bad completely negates any good that could ever come from it? If that were the case, then the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings would be seen as a great evil act that was horrific and terrifying. Neither of them are viewed as such. The atomic bombings are in fact viewed as successful actions to save many more lives than ever would have been lost from their usage. History has proven that the result of an action outweighs its morality. Thus the morality of an action is directly proportional to its consequence. A positive consequence comes from a positive action. If the action leads to a generally positive outcome, then it is a positive action.

 

I'm still waiting for your argument for objective morality by the way.

[Kabraxal]

You are simply saying "it's because I say so!" still... can we actually come up with something that isn't narcissistic?

 

And considering those individuals were listed because of your claim about how history views your philosophy, well the fact you are doing mental gymnastics proves you really don't understand much of what you are talking about.  And people only claim that the nuke ended the war... there is no agreement  on if it was a good thing, so maybe you should stop assuming your beliefs are universally accepted next time.  You aren't right because you're you... 

[AlanC9]

And considering those individuals were listed because of your claim about how history views your philosophy, well the fact you are doing mental gymnastics proves you really don't understand much of what you are talking about.  And people only claim that the nuke ended the war... there is no agreement  on if it was a good thing, so maybe you should stop assuming your beliefs are universally accepted next time.  You aren't right because you're you... 

 

 

I don't see any actual argument here, beyond "bad people believed this too."  And you never answered my question upthread. Would you really say that it's worse to murder one person than allow millions to die in a needless war?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

You are simply saying "it's because I say so!" still... can we actually come up with something that isn't narcissistic?

 

And considering those individuals were listed because of your claim about how history views your philosophy, well the fact you are doing mental gymnastics proves you really don't understand much of what you are talking about.  And people only claim that the nuke ended the war... there is no agreement  on if it was a good thing, so maybe you should stop assuming your beliefs are universally accepted next time.  You aren't right because you're you... 

 

I'm not making a claim that my beliefs are true because I believe in them. I'm claiming that my beliefs are true because by the fact that somebody believes in them disproves yours. You're otherwise reducing my arguments to a straw-man and presenting them in an unimpressive manner. Any fool can claim mental gymnastics.

 

You have to prove they were mental gymnastics. You have to prove it's narcissism. And yes, people, by stating that the nuclear devices ended the war, tend to agree that that was indeed a positive thing. A very positive thing, especially since it prevented an estimated 1,000,000 more deaths. My beliefs aren't universally accepted, no. But all that does is serve my point, which is exactly what moral relativism is. There is no 'universal' consensus or statement of morality. This argument proves it.

 

You yourself have not made an argument for your claim of objective morality or, more appropriately, an argument against mine. Only against me.

 

Attack the argument, not me. You're making an awful lot of supposition about me in the hopes of discrediting an argument based on who's saying it. That's a genetic fallacy.

[Kabraxal]

I'm not making a claim that my beliefs are true because I believe in them. I'm claiming that my beliefs are true because by the fact that somebody believes in them disproves yours. You're otherwise reducing my arguments to a straw-man and presenting them in an unimpressive manner. Any fool can claim mental gymnastics.

 

You have to prove they were mental gymnastics. You have to prove it's narcissism. And yes, people, by stating that the nuclear devices ended the war, tend to agree that that was indeed a positive thing. A very positive thing, especially since it prevented an estimated 1,000,000 more deaths. My beliefs aren't universally accepted, no. But all that does is serve my point, which is exactly what moral relativism is. There is no 'universal' consensus or statement of morality. This argument proves it.

 

You yourself have not made an argument for your claim of objective morality or, more appropriately, an argument against mine. Only against me.

 

Attack the argument, not me. You're making an awful lot of supposition about me in the hopes of discrediting an argument based on who's saying it. That's a genetic fallacy.

Except I never said "everyone believes X"... there can be moral absolutes and people still not believe in those absolutes.  Simple yet eluding you in your vain attempts to try and discredit me.  And again you conflate "well I don't believe so it can't possibly be true!".  SOrry, reality doesn't work that way.  I know it sucks for you since you are clinging to a very flimsy thread now.

 

All you've done is stomp your foot and go "what I say is right because!"  and then try and act superior.  Hell, the fact that individuals that have said they followed a philosophy like yours and you just try to hand wave it off as "those people were wrong!".  Well, according to you how could they be?  They beleived they were right and they did what they thought they had to to achieve a goal... and yet here you are trying to tack away from those valid points instead of embracing what should be the holy grail for you.  They did exactly what you've been arguing for but now you are trying to run away from them and call it a bad argument? Why is that?  Realise how terrible the philosophy really is?

 

Also, hint: you were the one that first claimed something and you've offered no proof except "because I believe it!".  So I'd look in a mirror if you're attacking me for claiming something wihout proof.. It's all you've done.

 

AlanC9: I'd find another way or die trying if I couldn't.  Though of course, such hypothetical scenarios are usually so terrible because they almost always never work that way outside of fiction.  

[Arcian]

They are. Any end is worth any action if you place enough value in it.

 

And yes, my existence does prove my assertion of reality. Can you tell me how it doesn't?

 

You're not doing much support for your perspective, only condemning me now for mine.

 

All you've done is make a moral-high-ground fallacy here.

Oh joy, you're an objectivist. That explains everything.

[Iakus]

As do I. But what makes you think that you are more than a mere animal? By what right does the man judge the man?

 

Ask the Catalyst. He gets it right.

 

The Catalyst is one step away from running Alpha Complex in a Paranoia game.

 

And I judge you by the same right you judge me.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

The Catalyst is one step away from running Alpha Complex in a Paranoia game.

 

And I judge you by the same right you judge me.

 

The non-existent one?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Oh joy, you're an objectivist. That explains everything.

 

Oh contrare, judging by your reaction, I'm as against it as you are. The fact that I'm even discussing moral relativity at all completely shatters the idea that I'm an objectivist (they have a very black and white sense of morality).

[AlanC9]

AlanC9: I'd find another way or die trying if I couldn't.  Though of course, such hypothetical scenarios are usually so terrible because they almost always never work that way outside of fiction.

What's the Hiroshima scenario except the same thing with different numbers?

And while it's nice that you'd be willing to die trying, that wouldn't help anything.

[Kabraxal]

What's the Hiroshima scenario except the same thing with different numbers?

And while it's nice that you'd be willing to die trying, that wouldn't help anything.

I think using nukes was stupid... the only thing you can argue is that it was less destructive than the firebombing of Tokyo at least.  But I don't look at that war and feel a sense of victory.  And I feel that if the only way to help a cause or goal is to commit murder, slavery, or rape... the only three things I can't find any good argument for, then maybe the cause just isn't worth it.  Is it really worth paradise to sail there on a sea of blood?

[ImaginaryMatter]

So whatever happened to Blasto's partner? Did he reach retirement?

 

Still keeps me up at night.