Khome, I don't mean this personally... more of a rhetorical question:
If you don't think anything is worth killing over, will you kindly lay down and die when your core values are challenged?
I don't mean intellectually challenged like me saying "Killing is okay," I mean actually challenged by someone actually doing "Killing is okay."
Freedom exists. Please understand that I'm not talking about some vague notion of political freedom. I believe that we are essentially and fundamentally free by simply being human, by making choices, by making decisions. I'm not saying we should be free, I'm saying we are free to have any values we wish, to subscribe to any beliefs we wish, to choose to do anything we wish. (blah, blah, within the context of what is logically, physically, technologically, personally possible)
I understand that we can disagree, I understand
Bull.
There is only one 'race', the human race. And this is becoming more and more so by the day, via the multi-culturism we all see around us. Whats this 'others views'?
Most people would agree on moral rights and wrongs be they Christian, Musim, Buddist or sith. It's only a few extremist that act otherwise, though they probably would agree what they do is morally wrong.
Unfortunately, the very few who do cause so much grief get huge exposure, so we perceive a big evil force.
So the conclusion? The renegades of our one global society should be reined in, just as we would rein in a criminal element or a dangerous dog.
i) self preservation is a reason to kill.
ii) preservation of the human race is another.
iii) touching my car is the third.
Demonstration:
I do not accept popular opinion as a valid source of knowledge.
Most people agree that X is true.
Therefore, X is true?
The logical structure is bunk... anything most people believed was true would be true. If most people believed god was real, then god would be real. If most people believed slavery wasn't wrong, then slavery wouldn't be wrong.
Sorry, bro.
Within the context of my belief system, you must provide solid reasoning and evidence to convince me to change any particular understanding. If you cannot convince me, that's fine... as long as you don't try to force me to take action based upon your views. This is true within the context of what I believe... maybe you disagree. You can accept popular opinion as a valid source of knowledge and refuse to accept reasoning as a valid source of knowledge. You can accept popular opinion as a secondary valid source of knowledge with
K
Khome y Peng
All worlds
That was a very long way to say "lets agree to disagree"
I respectfully disagree with some of those statements. Maybe I dont understand exactly the point you are trying to make, but anyway as I understand what you said here is why I disagree... The reason is that if what you say is correct then there is in fact no right or wrong. In which case you can do anything without doing anything 'wrong'. There is behavior that is extreme regardless of what religion or set of beliefs you hold dear.
For example... (obviously this is a harsh example, but it makes the point) pedophilia. There is no excuse for ANY reason that can be imagined that would excuse such behavior. Therefore if your religion or set of beliefs allow for pedophilia, then your religion or set of beliefs is obviously extreme. The same is true for many other behaviors.
I understand that each individual has the right to do and believe what they want, but not when it interferes with others right to do the same. If I believe
Global society knows what is right and what is wrong.
It cannot be defined by logic, arguement, proof whatever. So Scarlets convoluted comment above is null and void.
Like I said, the vast majority of all peoples would agree that murder is wrong. If there is a rogue element then it needs to be forced to conform to the majoritys consensus.
Yes, I can agree with the political correctness problem 100%
Well, let me see if I can simplify and unpack it at the same time.
Yes, it is 100% true that I'm saying that there is no absolute right or wrong. I'm saying that relative rights and wrongs exist within the context of what we believe is valuable. It is worth noting that I'm not taking it from the standpoint of "there is someone else to blame".
However, the point I touched on at the end of the first long wall of text and definitely could have elaborated more:
"I think that if someone refuses to recognize and respect another's freedom, they cannot coexist with others."
The essential argument is that while no absolute notion of right and wrong can be proven, the conditions for coexistence can be proven so that if coexistence is valuable, then those conditions must be met.
In order for a society to function, the concession that coexistance is valuable is a necessary prerequisite. While I'
So I'm still not much clearer on what you are expounding.
It sounds to me that you can respect the right of extemists to destroy the World Trade Center, blow up buses in London, massacre many in Norway and many other examples.
You need to examine your principles Scarlet and talk from the heart not from some pseudo intellectual radical view point. That or you are one of the ones that need reining in.
Okay, I'll just give the really simplified version:
Anyone who thinks something is right without logic, argument, or proof is fundamentally dangerous. All such people are dangerous... it doesn't matter if you take God or Global Consensus as the authority. I make no distinctions between a tyrant who demands that God's will be done and a tyrant who demands Society's will be done.
A society or government is worth living in only to the extent voluntary consent in the individual rights of life, liberty, and property is held sacred and above the demands of any government, group, or god.
All individuals who do not subscribe to these principles are better off destroyed, as permitting them to act against these principles poses a direct and fundamental threat to the very things we, as individuals, hold dear. There is no possibility of compromise without sacrificing these things.
This better? I got rid of so
It may be shorter but its no more correct.
I personally know if something is right or wrong without logic, arguement or proof. As do you really. It's a sort of how you know the consequences of your actions.
<!-Quote-!>Quote:A society or government is worth living in only to the extent voluntary consent in the individual rights of life, liberty, and property is held sacred and above the demands of any government, group, or god.<!-/Quote-!>
And you say this in your next paragraph. The opposite of what you first say.
I think you are just being an antagonist so I wont feed your trolling any further.
HaHa, I get lost in the length of text Scarlet. I appreciate the simpler (Or perhaps the 'dumbed down') version.
But I would argue that the great majority of what is right and wrong can be explained with simple logic and proof.
A
Alexandrov Stolin
All worlds
uhh i didnt read the whole thing but i think im getting the general drift of the conversation
"Anyone who thinks something is right without logic, argument, or proof is fundamentally dangerous. All such people are dangerous... it doesn't matter if you take God or Global Consensus as the authority. I make no distinctions between a tyrant who demands that God's will be done and a tyrant who demands Society's will be done. "
i agree with this completely.....if people believe in things based on prejudices or whims or an arbitrary "FEELING" weather it be god communism monstors or the chcocloate chip conspiracy then it makes sense that automatically they give that right to any other person which means
i can say i have a feeling that it is my duty to kill you or it is my duty to do anything i want because i have a feeling and you cant disagree with me
then this can become circular and you have co
A
Alexandrov Stolin
All worlds
crafty i think your misinterpreting scarlets points
I read it all and I loved it!!!! I am a supporter of the general information scarlet is "expounding." I quoted that because full understanding of this concept requires actually quite a bit more detail. A concept I myself have rejected but entertained the idea of it, mostly because of the inadequacies I see with the objectivity of subjectivity, and the argument that reality is unknown. Far too abstract for me that nihilism thing. But if anyone wants a better understanding it seems as Scarlet likes Fokoh <spelling? and/or Neitsche and/or Lyotard.
But whatever I agree to most of it. I'll bring back up my example with Scarlet's explanation, to challenge Crafty's instant dismissal without any valid grounds for them.
Using Crafty's assumption that what the general world's concesses is what is right, is completely nonsensical, and insensitive. Most recognizable with "i) self preservation is a reason
Stupid boy, as I
thought anyone would see, the car reference was a light hearted throw away comment. I can't believe you took it seriously.
I dont think your head is very clear Drew,
<!-Quote-!>Quote:What you are implying is that we have the freedoms to be insensitive, cohersive, and/or blatently ignorant. But these all come with a price. If you believe we are globally multicultural then you must also believe that we shouldn't have freespeech.<!-/Quote-!>
where on earth do you get that from?
Listen, I'll do a Scarlet and try to make myself very clear:
It's very important, crucial even, that peoples can discuss their differing views, - have freedom of speech if you must further drag that expression in the gutter - but freedom of terrorism? mass murder? singular murder even? enslavery? forced rule? and all actions that are
commonly accepted
I got that from all the other things I've said. You quoted an intemedian response.
Trust me I did use the car thing light heartedly, I merely used it to reference my point. If I took it seriously I would have been much more aggressive.
The truth is what actions spawn terrorism, mass murder, slavery, and forced rule? What is commonly accepted has no relevance when it counters people values. Why do they care if you don't like the violence, and if they know you will retaliate, if their life is meaningless compared to defending their honor?
Only idiots go and fight a war against an oppressed people, no love for the troops.
Justify peeing on dead soldiers bodies, and running around at nigfht killing defenseless civilians. That's right freedom of speech. pfft, completely lacks morality
I do understand I often get side tracked, and things aren't always clear in my posts
I have no idea why this is so difficult for some to understand. A persons 'freedoms' should never impose upon the freedoms of others. Its as simple as that. No need for long posts.
When/if my freedoms impose upon your freedoms then I am an extremist. We do not have the right or ability to say whose freedoms are most important. Therefore, do w/e you want UNLESS it results in hardships for others.
Ah yes, but killing someone might not be considered as imposing upon anothers freedoms by some. Then what?
What ever you guys think, there is a written code of good and bad that is universally understood. This code is what religious books try to put into words through parables and tales of lore. They all boil down to the same thing. Just some misuse them to create...create...I dont know, what do they want to create?
So, if you have to stomp on someones freedoms to protect the freedoms of peoples on the whole, then you should go ahead and stomp. We all know what are true rights and freedoms deserved by any human, all know, black, white, muslim or jew.
Any plea of 'it's my right to digress from the common moral code' is just so much codswallop.
So that is that, this thread is finished. I declare it my right to be right and going against my right to be right, right upsets me, right?
Sure as long as you realize that all previous aggression by the Europeon/American forces were violent by that force beforehand. So... I'm sure that right to defend themselves doesn't really apply. But you understand that so this thread is finished
@Drew
Never heard of Lyotard or Fokoh... maybe you meant Foucault? In which case, all I know about him is he had a picture of a pipe with the caption, "This is not a pipe." It was cute, but not enough to read further.
The big three people I've read and liked would be Nietzsche, Rand, and Heidegger.
@Serpent
The problem of simple things is that they will be misunderstood. When we talk about rights are we talking about claim rights, liberty rights, negative rights, and/or positive rights? When we talk about freedom are we talking about personal, political, and/or economic freedom? When we talk about about freedoms not imposing on others, do we mean freedoms should never incur unasked for obligations or unasked for inconveniences? What qualifies as a hardship? Is hearing someone insult your god a hardship as Drew said? Or is requiring people to keep their mouth shut a hardship as I said? How do we differentiate between these ca
A
Alexandrov Stolin
All worlds
no we are fighting monstors who are good at controlling undereducated masses
but maybe thats just my perception
i think it has obviously become much to hard to coexist in this global world and more isolationist practices should be put into affect
Words do not incur hardships of any kind no more than thoughts do! Speech cant be censored for the same reason thoughts cant be censored. Obviously if somebody speaks against someone elses beliefs or their God they may be insulted, but it does not incur a hardship on them.
This idea of not imposing on others freedoms/rights applies on the small scale from your relationships with your spouse, neighbors, workmates, classmates etc.. to the larger scale like countries and religions or differing sets of beliefs. Enjoy all the freedoms you desire as long as they don't interfere with others freedoms.
This is the same point Ive tried to make in other posts as well, this world has become so preoccupied with 'political correctness' that people are willing to take offense at somebody's words! I mean c'mon man! Whats next? Will we not even be allowed to think how we want out of fear of offending somebody?
I do think that
<!-Quote-!>Quote:Sure as long as you realize that all previous aggression by the Europeon/American forces were violent by that force beforehand. So... I'm sure that right to defend themselves doesn't really apply.<!-/Quote-!>
I have no idea what that sentence means. Try it in coherent English.
<!-Quote-!>Quote:We're not fighting monsters; we're fighting dedicated people fully committed to what they honestly believe.<!-/Quote-!>
You are completely trumped by Alexandrov Scarlet.
<!-Quote-!>Quote:no we are fighting monstors who are good at controlling undereducated masses<!-/Quote-!>
I know
instinctively what is right or wrong mostly, there may be one or two grey areas but...
As I'm sure you all do. A couple of times people have come a whisker away fr
Has anyone posting ever been overseas?? and observed any of the behavior depicted just a question