Objectively, being in control of one's own fate is better than being enslaved. You're just hung up on the term "morally wrong." There are behaviors which simply cannot be tolerated in a civilized society, and it's self-evident (and also clearly demonstrable) that civilization is better than anarchy.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
In a disastrous attempt to be funny and clever, Bloodsage wrote:
Now you're just talking in circles.Objectively, being in control of one's own fate is better than being enslaved. You're just hung up on the term "morally wrong." There are behaviors which simply cannot be tolerated in a civilized society, and it's self-evident (and also clearly demonstrable) that civilization is better than anarchy.
Demonstrate it.
Edit: Generally, substantiate your arguments. You make a lot of unbacked claims and assume that "common sense" will take care of it, and I'm just not buying it. Burden of proof is on you. Jensus fucked around with this message on 05-08-2005 at 06:52 PM.
quote:
Jensus startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
Demonstrate it.Edit: Generally, substantiate your arguments. You make a lot of unbacked claims and assume that "common sense" will take care of it, and I'm just not buying it. Burden of proof is on you.
No, actually, it's not. You are the one arguing against the sum total of human thinking on the subject. As I said, "Cogito ergo sum," is the only thing that can be proven in the sense you seem to expect. It is self-evident that civilization is better than anarchy, as the last 5,000 or so years of history has shown. In terms of nothing else, human lifespans have lengthened dramatically.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage has a secret obsession with Richard Simmons, as evidenced by...
No, actually, it's not. You are the one arguing against the sum total of human thinking on the subject. As I said, "Cogito ergo sum," is the only thing that can be proven in the sense you seem to expect. It is self-evident that civilization is better than anarchy, as the last 5,000 or so years of history has shown. In terms of nothing else, human lifespans have lengthened dramatically.
My whole point can pretty much be summed up in the question "Better, as defined by who?" Jensus fucked around with this message on 05-08-2005 at 07:06 PM.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Jensus absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
My whole point can pretty much be summed up in the question "Better, as defined by who?"
Hate to disappoint you, but you have neither a point nor an argument. Nor is my argument a fallacy, because "better" is a relative term, it's quite reasonable to point out the march of history and the state of the populace.
Now go poll 100 people, and ask them if they'd rather die of old age at 45-ish, or 70-ish. See how many agree with you that the latter is in no way better than the former.
All you've done is graduate from the childishly repetitive "Why?" to the sophomorically repetitive "Prove it!" as a means of talking in circles and irritating your betters.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
In a disastrous attempt to be funny and clever, Bloodsage wrote:
Hate to disappoint you, but you have neither a point nor an argument. Nor is my argument a fallacy, because "better" is a relative term, it's quite reasonable to point out the march of history and the state of the populace.Now go poll 100 people, and ask them if they'd rather die of old age at 45-ish, or 70-ish. See how many agree with you that the latter is in no way better than the former.
All you've done is graduate from the childishly repetitive "Why?" to the sophomorically repetitive "Prove it!" as a means of talking in circles and irritating your betters.
Okay. And...you've managed to...what? Make a lot of unsubstantiated claims and WON? I mean sure, if you're trying to look like a great INTERNET DEBATOR then it's probably working fine, but your reputation around EC is already good. I'm just kinda genuinely trying to work out if there's something wrong with what I'm saying and uh, yeah, you haven't said anything at all except "It's wrong, you're dumb" 
If I accept that something is "better" than something else then I'd be contradicting my entire point. Nothing is objectively "better" than anything else because nothing that is subjective has any more value than anything else.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Jensus absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
If I accept that something is "better" than something else then I'd be contradicting my entire point. Nothing is objectively "better" than anything else because nothing that is subjective has any more value than anything else.
Ignoring the petulant whining, here is your problem: you're arguing in circles. You refuse to accept what's blatantly obvious on the sole grounds that it would undermine what you want to believe. Which means that you aren't seeking knowledge, but simply holding an unsubstatiated belief at any cost.
Okay, okay--you're right up there with Descarte in saying that nothing objective can be proven. BFD--not only has it been done to death well before your time, but it's meaningless except as a mental exercise before moving on to things that have meaning in the real world.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
In a disastrous attempt to be funny and clever, Bloodsage wrote:
Ignoring the petulant whining, here is your problem: you're arguing in circles. You refuse to accept what's blatantly obvious on the sole grounds that it would undermine what you want to believe. Which means that you aren't seeking knowledge, but simply holding an unsubstatiated belief at any cost.Okay, okay--you're right up there with Descarte in saying that nothing objective can be proven. BFD--not only has it been done to death well before your time, but it's meaningless except as a mental exercise before moving on to things that have meaning in the real world.
what
That's not what I'm saying at all.
Forget it.
quote:
Jensus had this to say about Robocop:
Okay. And...you've managed to...what? Make a lot of unsubstantiated claims and WON? I mean sure, if you're trying to look like a great INTERNET DEBATOR then it's probably working fine, but your reputation around EC is already good. I'm just kinda genuinely trying to work out if there's something wrong with what I'm saying and uh, yeah, you haven't said anything at all except "It's wrong, you're dumb"
If I accept that something is "better" than something else then I'd be contradicting my entire point. Nothing is objectively "better" than anything else because nothing that is subjective has any more value than anything else.
Yet you do accept that objectivity holds a special worth to make it the basis of your whole train of thought?
I am not concerned with what makes human civilization tick, I am not concerned with proving that I or this bowl of cornflakes exist, I am not concerned with anything except that anything that relies on anything subjective for substantiation has the value zero, including morality in its entirety, or near-entirety. If you set an arbitrary goal to maximize human comfort, then yes, morals that lead towards that goal will be "better" relative to that goal, but the goal itself has no ground to stand on.
I can not wrap my mind around how something that is subjective can be objective. It is illogical.
quote:
While possessed by the spirit of Somthor, Mod wrote:
Yet you do accept that objectivity holds a special worth to make it the basis of your whole train of thought?
Objective things don't have any special worth. They just are (in the existential sense, I don't mean they're special).
Subjective things are not. Jensus fucked around with this message on 05-08-2005 at 07:51 PM.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Jensus absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Why am I the only one who seems to think that if something is as obvious as Bloodsage claims, then it should be easy to explain? I mean, I don't get it. I'm not holding on to some belief here, I just quite literally do not get why these things that make no sense to me, like something being objectively better than something else (which seems contradictory, considering even BS admitted that 'better' is a subjective term).I am not concerned with what makes human civilization tick, I am not concerned with proving that I or this bowl of cornflakes exist, I am not concerned with anything except that anything that relies on anything subjective for substantiation has the value zero, including morality in its entirety, or near-entirety. If you set an arbitrary goal to maximize human comfort, then yes, morals that lead towards that goal will be "better" relative to that goal, but the goal itself has no ground to stand on.
I can not wrap my mind around how something that is subjective can be objective. It is illogical.
If you don't understand the inherent idiocy of what you're spouting, you need to read some philosophy. And quit trying to be cute; all you've done is strike a pose and shout, "I have an assertion, and none of you stupid bastards can disprove it. I am therefore really smart."
Of course there is no such thing as objectively better; "better" is a comparative term. You might as well be asking someone to weigh themselves in meters, for all the sense you make; any idiot can make a big show of challenging basic assumptions and repeating "prove it" ad nauseum while simultaneously rejecting any basis for discussion.
Of course, given your radical philosophy, you shouldn't ever, ever complain about anything--including other people's standards of judging your silliness. Remember: all comparisons are equally baseless and arbitrary.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
If you're just trying to win the argument then okay, that's cool, but there were just some things you kept saying that I felt you either didn't address enough or that simply were invalid in the context. For starters:
"Objectively, being in control of one's own fate is better than being enslaved."
I don't get it. Didn't you just say that "Of course there is no such thing as objectively better"? I'm not following. Can you elaborate on that?
You also said "There are behaviors which simply cannot be tolerated in a civilized society, and it's self-evident (and also clearly demonstrable) that civilization is better than anarchy." I feel that's correct, if the goal at hand is to maintain civilized society, but I can't think of any objective reason to work towards maintaining civilized society. I would say that maintaining civilized society is a subjective goal most humans share, but that it is not necessarily therefore an objective goal, and thus ultimately it has zero value as it only exists because you decide it exists.
Additionally, you said that "In terms of nothing else, human lifespans have lengthened dramatically" and "Quite a bit of morality is rational, in that the standards of conduct are necessary for society to exist in any state other than anarchy or tyranny." - how is that relevant when you can't even determine if that is objectively better or necessary - Why is the existence of society necessary to begin with? I don't understand it, quite literally.
In fact, I can't find a single line that substantiates any of the claims you've made, but I can find all these claims. I'm very glad you've apparently read a lot of philosophy, as you repeatedly point out that I haven't, but it really does us no good in determining if what I'm saying is true or not. 
I'm really not trying to be a dumb jerk or anything, I just don't get why you say a lot of the things you say in this context. 
Jensus fucked around with this message on 05-08-2005 at 08:29 PM.
Edit: I'm also going to bed because I have a cold and an exam tomorrow.
You are the one who has made an assertion. You are the one who must come up with an argument to support it. Simply asking over and over again for everyone else to justify the obvious, and then concluding that your idea is correct by default is. . .wait for it. . .stupid.
Show me a society that works based on your assumptions. Show me that the absence of civilization is better than its presence. Show me that dying of old age in one's forties is just as good as living into one's seventies. You're asking a comparative question and demanding objective proof.
If you refuse to accept certain basic assumptions, you're just retreating to the tired old position that since nothing can be proven, everything is illusion, and therefore equal. Yes, we get that already. Read Descartes.
But there can be no discussion without assumptions. By rejecting basic assumptions, all you're doing is trolling. Anyone can say, "I reject your assumptions, and therefore you can't prove me wrong or yourself correct."
Do you want to live in anarchy? If so, you're stupid; if not, you've just made a value judgement. Welcome to humanity.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I hope to hell that Jens never achieves a position of meaningful power over other people. I'm honestly surprised he hasn't been tagged as a serial killer in training, being as how it seems that, to him, it's ok to do anything to anyone if you're strong enough.
All he needs to do is to make that small jump to seeing others as tools or objects instead of people and his journey to the dark side will be complete.
The proper way to seek knowledge is along the lines of, "Hey, I had this idea that [insert topic here]--does that make sense?" rather than making an outrageous claim then getting trapped attempting to justify the indefensible.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I find so much of goodness still,
In men whom men pronounce divine
I find so much of sin and blot;
I hesitate to draw a line
Between the two where God has not."
Some people are like Slinkys... Not really good for anything, But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
quote:
Mortious probably says this to all the girls:
I'd be better.Though the number of banned accounts would jump rapidly.
I think I speak for a number of people here when I say I don't believe there would be a problem bowing to a dark servant of the Empire.
-Tok
-Tok
quote:
Toktuk said:
I think I speak for a number of people here when I say I don't believe there would be a problem bowing to a dark servant of the Empire.-Tok
I'm actually a pretty good mod, my own forums are run well and smoothly.
Though they only have a fraction of the members the EC ones do and nowhere near the amount of sensational drama.
We do things becuase we have some sort of core belief system. Some sort of driving goal on what we hold dear. It's what sets us apart form machines - no matter how much logic and reasonign skills you have, it doesn't mean a damn thing unless you put it in context. For most people, that context is almost universal... the value of human life, etc etc. It's our core belief system. Things are self evident becuase all conclusions lead to something that correspodns with our core belief systems. With a diffrent core belief system, the basis for everything woudl change, and what is self evident for us would be diffrent from what's self evident for him.
Jens is by no means stupid. I view him as smarter than a lot of people on this forum. THe diffrence is Jen's core belief system is diffrent than ours on the most basic level. I belive this is why we call him a sociopath.... though since I am not a psychistrist i can not call him one for sure. Jens is also a lot more "rational" than most people that appear to have his condition... at least the ones i know. The one in 25 thing sounds bizzare at first, but makes sense if you think about it. THat scares me.
As for how scary it would be if he's in a position of power, I agree. Thing is, this isn't uncommon. He has management written all over him. My fear is that he will some day have vision, a purpose. Right now he is dangerous but can be kept in check. If he has a vision or purpose, it will be drasticly diffrent form anything that most of us will invision as sain or rational. The consiquences of his actions would be viewed in a diffrent light in his eyes than ours, and we would all be in a lot of danger. But this isn't the case. But he isn't stupid, he's smart... and that's one of the things that actully concerns me a bit.
So Jen's description of himself as a nihilist isn't far off. The reason most people view him as stupid is becuase they can't comprehend someone trying to reach obejctives so alien from our own. He would be stupid if his logic was flawed or his paths were off to reach his goals - some people with his mentality can't do this and ARE stupid ... and this is a case that's a big relief for the rest of us. Jens doesn't have t hese flaws. So it's his not being stupid coupled with his core beleif system varying so much from my own that scares me. The fact he anaylises everythign past a point where it matters is actully a bit of a relief for me, becuase it hinders his direction and compromises his ability to have a vision. In other words, he's so logical at times he doesn't even have an underyling goal - the thing that seperates us from machines. So he ends up with just logic and no instinct... a shell without meaning.
The desire to survive... to protect our own.... to procreate.... all instincts he questions so much they lost all meaning. And in the end, that's part of what drives us. I guess you could say he's broken.
That said, I guess I really shouldn't be too scared until he has a purpose - it could happen to be good instead of bad by pure luck. diadem fucked around with this message on 05-09-2005 at 08:04 AM.
As I see it, the entire origin of morality can be traced back to the Golden Rule, or a variant thereof. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because sooner or later they'll figure out how. Even the most powerful and oppressive dictator eventually loses his power (a feature of mortality), or depends on others to supply it (a feature of strength in numbers). Should anyone else successfully usurp that power, the former dictator will be subject to any treatment which has not been defined as taboo. Thus, all individuals agree there are certain things they never want done to them, and agree to never perform these same actions upon others. These taboos form the core of morality as we know it.
Over the course of time, people extend the list of moral codes, most often to improve their collective condition of living (either for a small group, a large group, or society as a whole). These additions often cause a blurring between morality and obsurdity, however, as in many cases people do not understand the ramifications of their additions to the existing moral codes, and some additions even conflict with existing morals. `Doc fucked around with this message on 05-09-2005 at 08:43 AM.
quote:
Mortious had this to say about (_|_):
I'm actually a pretty good mod, my own forums are run well and smoothly.Though they only have a fraction of the members the EC ones do and nowhere near the amount of sensational drama.
My community is bigger than your community!
Oh well, at least Diadem seems to get it (even though he seemed to miss the point that I don't have any vision because I genuinely can't justify having one to myself). I guess Bloodsage wins the INTERNET DABATOR AWARD still, though.
The issue is pretty much that I really don't understand on a fundamental level how some of the things you claim are self evident are self evident because they are only self evident if you make certain assumptions as far as I can see, such as "living longer = better" or "more comfort = better", or whatever (I'm not being sarcastic, for serious, I really really do not understand why it's self evident and you refuse to explain it to me).
Besides, I wouldn't be dangerous in a position of power, jeez. I'm a straight shooter with upper management written all over me.
Jensus fucked around with this message on 05-09-2005 at 08:51 AM.
Edit: btw za im taking over ur community gg hf noob 
quote:
Quoth diadem:
I think most people are missing the point with Jens.We do things becuase we have some sort of core belief system. Some sort of driving goal on what we hold dear. It's what sets us apart form machines - no matter how much logic and reasonign skills you have, it doesn't mean a damn thing unless you put it in context. For most people, that context is almost universal... the value of human life, etc etc. It's our core belief system. Things are self evident becuase all conclusions lead to something that correspodns with our core belief systems. With a diffrent core belief system, the basis for everything woudl change, and what is self evident for us would be diffrent from what's self evident for him.
Jens is by no means stupid. I view him as smarter than a lot of people on this forum. THe diffrence is Jen's core belief system is diffrent than ours on the most basic level. I belive this is why we call him a sociopath.... though since I am not a psychistrist i can not call him one for sure. Jens is also a lot more "rational" than most people that appear to have his condition... at least the ones i know. The one in 25 thing sounds bizzare at first, but makes sense if you think about it. THat scares me.
As for how scary it would be if he's in a position of power, I agree. Thing is, this isn't uncommon. He has management written all over him. My fear is that he will some day have vision, a purpose. Right now he is dangerous but can be kept in check. If he has a vision or purpose, it will be drasticly diffrent form anything that most of us will invision as sain or rational. The consiquences of his actions would be viewed in a diffrent light in his eyes than ours, and we would all be in a lot of danger. But this isn't the case. But he isn't stupid, he's smart... and that's one of the things that actully concerns me a bit.
So Jen's description of himself as a nihilist isn't far off. The reason most people view him as stupid is becuase they can't comprehend someone trying to reach obejctives so alien from our own. He would be stupid if his logic was flawed or his paths were off to reach his goals - some people with his mentality can't do this and ARE stupid ... and this is a case that's a big relief for the rest of us. Jens doesn't have t hese flaws. So it's his not being stupid coupled with his core beleif system varying so much from my own that scares me. The fact he anaylises everythign past a point where it matters is actully a bit of a relief for me, becuase it hinders his direction and compromises his ability to have a vision. In other words, he's so logical at times he doesn't even have an underyling goal - the thing that seperates us from machines. So he ends up with just logic and no instinct... a shell without meaning.
The desire to survive... to protect our own.... to procreate.... all instincts he questions so much they lost all meaning. And in the end, that's part of what drives us. I guess you could say he's broken.
That said, I guess I really shouldn't be too scared until he has a purpose - it could happen to be good instead of bad by pure luck.
Actually, the reason I find him stupid is because he talks in circles and can't understand the ramifications of the bullshit he spouts. I'm so weary of the, "I'm really, really smart; I just can't express myself very well," excuses.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Jens, trying to find objective reasoning for subjective values is completely meaningless.
Bloodsage, I count at least four strawmen and about a quadabillion "cause i say so". You really might want to try to stick to the argument, even if it as, as stated above, meaningless.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Jensus gently hums:
Can anyone find a real argument in any of Bloodsage's posts? I gave up.Oh well, at least Diadem seems to get it (even though he seemed to miss the point that I don't have any vision because I genuinely can't justify having one to myself). I guess Bloodsage wins the INTERNET DABATOR AWARD still, though.
The issue is pretty much that I really don't understand on a fundamental level how some of the things you claim are self evident are self evident because they are only self evident if you make certain assumptions as far as I can see, such as "living longer = better" or "more comfort = better", or whatever (I'm not being sarcastic, for serious, I really really do not understand why it's self evident and you refuse to explain it to me).
Besides, I wouldn't be dangerous in a position of power, jeez. I'm a straight shooter with upper management written all over me.
Edit: btw za im taking over ur community gg hf noob
Come back when you're better read. The problem is that you haven't advanced a position other than "I reject everyone else's basic assumptions, and will continue to do so just to be a pain in the ass--haHA." As I've explained--but you refuse to understand--there is no conversation without shared assumptions. If you want a debate, or to learn, you need to advance a structure of your own, rather than simply rejecting all structure. Yes, in showing that all structure is flawed, Derida essentially rendered them all equal in being invalid.
That said, only a troll or an idiot will argue that anarchy is better than civilization. Or that there can be no such thing as one thing being better than another.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
In a disastrous attempt to be funny and clever, Zaza wrote:
ITT, trying to argue completely subjective concepts from an objective standpoint is less than a rousing success.
Part of what I tried to say was that you can't give subjective concepts any meaning because they're subjective, so all subjective concepts carry the same value: none.
Since morality relies entirely on subjective concepts as far as I can see - and noone has said anything to the contrary so far - morality has a value of zero and only carries any weight if you assume certain things, like a goal to work towards.
quote:
Zaza startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
ITT, trying to argue completely subjective concepts from an objective standpoint is less than a rousing success.Jens, trying to find objective reasoning for subjective values is completely meaningless.
Bloodsage, I count at least four strawmen and about a quadabillion "cause i say so". You really might want to try to stick to the argument, even if it as, as stated above, meaningless.
Kindly point out these alleged strawmen, O Great Mind.
And I refuse to play the two-year-old "Why?" game, which is all Jens is doing. If he refuses to enter with even a basic understanding of what he's talking about, I'll be damned if I'm going to teach him philosophy from scratch.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
Kindly point out these alleged strawmen, O Great Mind.And I refuse to play the two-year-old "Why?" game, which is all Jens is doing. If he refuses to enter with even a basic understanding of what he's talking about, I'll be damned if I'm going to teach him philosophy from scratch.
quote:
Show me a society that works based on your assumptions. Show me that the absence of civilization is better than its presence.
Two strawmen right there, as there was no argument that anarchy or lack of civilization is better, nor that it "works" as common standards of "works" go.
quote:
"I'm cool with being enslaved," is a ridiculous thing to say. It's patently not true.
Well, OK, three. Not four. Sorry. Zaza fucked around with this message on 05-09-2005 at 09:57 AM.
jackman fucked around with this message on 05-09-2005 at 09:58 AM.
9/10 people simply worship thier Domamatrix
Some people are like Slinkys... Not really good for anything, But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
quote:
While possessed by the spirit of Somthor, Bloodsage wrote:
Kindly point out these alleged strawmen, O Great Mind.And I refuse to play the two-year-old "Why?" game, which is all Jens is doing. If he refuses to enter with even a basic understanding of what he's talking about, I'll be damned if I'm going to teach him philosophy from scratch.
It doesn't matter anymore, I argued with Za in IRC for a bit and the part I got stuck on was the need for justification to do or not do, since at any given point it cannot be justified to attach arbitrary value to an action, and arbitrary value is necessary to do or not do since -- well, see previously. Once you realize there's no reason you should need justification, you're pretty much left with the idea that you can do whatever.
You may win the internet dabator award, but I really wasn't doing this as some kind of contest as opposed to just for my own understanding. Sorry for the hassle.
