Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-01-2005, 08:44 PM   #126
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
before you do, could you bive me a moment to refill my fire extinguisher?

I just used it on others a moment or two ago, and I get the feel I'm gonna need to use it again before I have a chance to store it away...
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 08:18 AM   #127
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Granny, your still not getting the basic idea of morals. They don't change just because of any situtation.

Lets look at another example. Theft. If I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family, is it theft? You seem to think it would be morally acceptable to do this.

But what if I told you I stole it from another family who was even worse off with more kids than I have? Now do you feel the same way about me stealing the bread?

There in lies the crux. Morality says don't do it. Period. No exceptions. Justifying it based on your own life and issues doesn't make it right, just makes it justified, to you, and maybe those who agree with you, not to everyone else.

What everyone can agree on is stealing is wrong, therefore stealling is immoral. Facts surrounding the theft don't count.

Like Loy's example. If I preform a 'pre-emtive strike' on my neighbor down the road because I think he is stockpiling guns to come kill me, would I not be arrested? If I steal food from the gocery store to feed my familiy, are the police not going to arrest me because it was justified?

Morals are set. Societies perceptions of your actions is what is fluid. And Societies perception is called ethics, which most western law is based upon.

Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 10:32 AM   #128
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
Granny, your still not getting the basic idea of morals.
This coming from a guy who said that just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

Quote:
They don't change just because of any situtation.
YOU think they don't.

Quote:
Lets look at another example. Theft. If I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family, is it theft? You seem to think it would be morally acceptable to do this.

But what if I told you I stole it from another family who was even worse off with more kids than I have? Now do you feel the same way about me stealing the bread?
How about let's not look at another example, because I want an answer to my example. But whatever. I never said anything about theivery being morally acceptable to help feed a family, although your examples bring up complicated moral issues. I'm not going to get into them because you won't care. I would ask you if you saw no moral difference between a desparately poor family stealing some food from a rich family or from an even poorer family, but I know you don't see any difference.

Quote:
What everyone can agree on is stealing is wrong, therefore stealling is immoral. Facts surrounding the theft don't count.
That's one way of looking at it. Since I don't expect you change your mind, will you at least accept that it might be possible for the circumstances to have an influence on the morality of an act?

Quote:
Like Loy's example. If I preform a 'pre-emtive strike' on my neighbor down the road because I think he is stockpiling guns to come kill me, would I not be arrested? If I steal food from the gocery store to feed my familiy, are the police not going to arrest me because it was justified?
Fuck your examples. Do you think the police will arrest me for killing ten people with atomic bombs that they're openly threatening to set off? [Hint: they won't, but it doesn't matter if I'll get arrested or not, right? Morals are outside of the law, right? So why are you arguing that I'll get arrested if I steal something, no matter what my circumstances? Something can be illegal and still be morally "right."]

Quote:
Morals are set. Societies perceptions of your actions is what is fluid. And Societies perception is called ethics, which most western law is based upon.
Oh yeah? Ethics: A set of principles of right conduct. Moral: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character; Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005, 06:58 AM   #129
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
TS - So explain to me then, if I am missing this, how the taking of a human life is morally acceptable at any time?

Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005, 08:18 AM   #130
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
No, what you have said is you feel religion legislates morality, I am saying morality is above relgion. If you go back to times prior to relgion, early man even knew on some level what theft was, was killing was. If you look at those types of acts outside the context of religion, then they are still immoral based on humanity itself.

I'm just trying to figure out why you think killing, theft, ****, etc. could at any point be considered moral.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2005, 07:59 AM   #131
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
TS - Grey? I'm the one arguing taking life is wrong period. No grey area at all. Your the one stating that Everything is dependant on circumstance, and different versions of truth.

I don't think that truth or circumstances has any effect in dictating what is or isn't moral. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong. No grey at all.

Your justification is your own, your truth is your own, but in the end the act is immoral whether you can justify it or not.



Slán (<= Irish for 'bye', commonly used in message greetings)
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2005, 01:56 PM   #132
WolfMoon
 
WolfMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I own Pitseleh!!
Posts: 3,747
So, what's Irish for 'I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay!' ?
WolfMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 10:15 AM   #133
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
So how does one moralize a ****, a theft, and a killing?
One does not moralize a **** or murder; they're simply wrong.

Quote:
Now back to having multiple versions of the truth for a moment, because this is a really interesting concept. If morality were set in stone and never changing, then there would be no need for judiciary involvement. Everyone would know what was right and what was wrong, and anyone could punish wrong doers accordingly.
Untrue. You could hardly argue, for instance, that there are "multiple" equally valid "versions of the truth" in regard to science and natural laws -- but that doesn't mean that there's no need for scientists, that everyone knows what's true and false regarding science, that every layman can conduct experiments with partical accelerators.

Quote:
The problem is, which I touched ever so light upon in an earlier post, we are very rarely giving a situation so clear. More than not we have to cipher through all the different versions, decide on one which holds the popular opinion, and go with it.
Neither truth nor morality are subject to popular opinion. I would really hope that someone, in making moral decisions, doesn't simply go with what holds the popular opinion. Remember that opposing slavery used to be highly unpopular.

Quote:
Once a version decision is made our moral code is updated to reflect our new feelings in that particular instance.
What's this talk about versions, anyway? There are only two possible things that a person's view of reality can be: true or untrue. It can be realistic or false.

Quote:
A hypothetical. You have a rich country filled with raw materials, and you have a poor country which is dependant of the rich’s goods for its survival. One day the rich country decides to raise the taxes for the export of all goods to the poor country, and the poor country begrudgingly accedes. Two moths later the rich country decides to stop all export of goods to the poor country, even though the poor country was paying the outrageous tariffs. The rich country’s reasoning to the poor is they felt they needed to protect and safeguard their materials for future generations, even at the cost of the poor country.

The poor country decides to muster its people, and war against the rich.

Who is right, and who is wrong?
The rich country (if, that term, you mean the businessmen of that country, since the governments of rich countries don't have the kind of arbitrary power that you mentioned) would be the one defending itself from force (since the poor one instituted the use of force), so they would be right and the poor country, wrong.

The poor country has no right to use force to obtain what they did not produce. Those goods were produced by the labor and capital of individuals in the rich country; whether the poor country needs them or not is irrelevant. If the rich country chooses to sell to the poor, then the poor has every right to purchase what it wants. If the rich country chooses to raise prices, then that's their right: the goods are entirely theirs by right of rights. If the poor country wants to buy the goods at that price, they may.

If the rich country chooses to not sell its products, that is its right. A sale requires the seller's consent -- regardless of any need involved on either side. If I don't want to sell you my house, it makes not a difference whether you need it for shelter or not.

The poor country has no right to forcefully take the property of others. Since property is created only by labor and capital, claiming a right to the property of others (regardless of the reason or basis) would be claiming a right to the labor of others, whether they wish to give it or not. This is slavery by any definition of the word.

Now, speaking purely theoretically, the rich country shouldn't raise tariffs or cut off trade -- both of which are unwise choices (or evil, since only the government could make that decision -- not the individuals who produced and sold the goods in the first place), but disastrous in this case. Nonetheless, that does not give the poor country the right to enslave, regardless of the poor's need or of the sins of the rich's government.

Quote:
Hypothetical 2. A boy of sixteen is seduced by his attractive, 23 year old female teacher. He out weighs her by 100 pounds, is an intelligent young man capable of mature logic, but when the affair comes to light the woman is convicted statutory ****.

Who wronged who, and who righted what?
An intelligent sixteen-year-old is more than capable of acting or not acting on his own consent and free choice. Unless the teacher physically forced him to have sex (unlikely), nothing wrong was commited.

No-one was harmed, and so the teacher was wronged in being punished.

(This only applies to the statuatory **** charge -- if the school itself had a policy against students' dating teachers, which is almost certain, then it has every right to dismiss the teacher. But that is not to say that she should be brought up on criminal charges.)

Quote:
Hypothetical 3. A woman has worked for a large manufacture for 20 years. During that time she contributed to the company’s retirement plan, and at the end of her tenure should have had 500,000 dollars to apply toward her retirement. However, when she filed for her retirement it was discovered the company had stolen her monies to use for the acquisitioning of another company to expand their overall profitability. The woman takes the company to court, and the jury finds in favor of the woman for the return of the original 500,000 dollars, in addition they award her another 2 million dollars to send a message to all other companies practicing that type of behavior.

Who stole from who, and which is more wrong.
The company had a mutual, contractual agreement with the woman. In failing to honor its terms, and in stealing her money (assuming that it wasn't simply investing it, as banks do today), it commited a crime necessary of punishment. Awarding the woman's $500k back to her is simple justice, since the money is hers (again, assuming that the company wasn't simply investing the money in the same manner that banks today do), and some slight recompense would be just, but $2,000,000 is excessive.

The company stole from the woman, but the woman was awarded money which she did not earn. The company was more in the wrong by far, but the woman's acceptance of $2,000,000 did not restore her own money, but took money that was lawfully the company's. On that point, both commited some degree of wrong.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 10:47 AM   #134
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
TS - Grey? I'm the one arguing taking life is wrong period. No grey area at all.
So I assume that taking the life of a woman who is in a persistant vegetative state, and has been for over ten years, would be wrong. She's still alive. So I assume you would be opposed to the following opinion on the issue, seeing as how it places a husband's right to end to life of his wife over the right of the parents to keep her alive and thinks that after a decade with no improvement, it's a-ok to pull the plug:
Quote:
1. She has been this way for over 10 years. If she was going to recover, you think it would have happened by now. I think 10 years is more than enough time to show SOME improvement.

2. No one in the history of the world with her condition has ever recovered. There have been similar cases, but with the amount of brain injury she has, NO ONE has ever recovered.

And most importantly, I think a husband or wife should have more say so than the parents legally. In a similar situation, I think most woul like to think your soul mate can make the call, the person who you share your home, bed, and life with rather than the 'rents.

And for those who think the man is doing it for the money, medical history shows it was an accident, nothing more. Had he some way been implicated in the injury I'd say he might have alterior motives, but there has never been that accusation.?
I wonder who wrote this...

(I'm not at all trying to bring back up this issue, just trying to fracture Sternn's attachment to his shiny new high horse.)
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 11:14 AM   #135
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
Now back to having multiple versions of the truth for a moment, because this is a really interesting concept. If morality were set in stone and never changing, then there would be no need for judiciary involvement. Everyone would know what was right and what was wrong, and anyone could punish wrong doers accordingly.
Untrue. You could hardly argue, for instance, that there are "multiple" equally valid "versions of the truth" in regard to science and natural laws -- but that doesn't mean that there's no need for scientists, that everyone knows what's true and false regarding science, that every layman can conduct experiments with partical accelerators.
Totally agree.

Quote:
What's this talk about versions, anyway? There are only two possible things that a person's view of reality can be: true or untrue. It can be realistic or false.
I'll let T get this one.

Quote:
If the rich country chooses to not sell its products, that is its right. A sale requires the seller's consent -- regardless of any need involved on either side. If I don't want to sell you my house, it makes not a difference whether you need it for shelter or not.

The poor country has no right to forcefully take the property of others.
Finally, I can use a half-true situation instead of some whacked-out hypothetical! In Florida, after particularly bad hurricane seasons, many retailers of food, water, gas, and goods needed to rebuild homes, jack up their prices by as much as they think they can legally get away with. Now, these people's companies would not have survived if it weren't for the now-homeless people supporting their institutions over the years. I'll allow that some moderate mark-up is reasonable, albeit not a great moral position, but what about when stores start charging a $25 for a gallon of water? What about $100? What about $1000? What if stores simply refused to sell water and food? What if people died because of their price gouging? Could they be charged with murder? After all, they could reasonably expect that their refusal to sell neccesary things like food and water to hurricane-stricken people would kill some of them.

What if these people then stormed the grocery stores that had shuttered its doors? They would be completely in the wrong? They would be "enslaving" the store owners?
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 11:29 AM   #136
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granny-like_the_apple
Finally, I can use a half-true situation instead of some whacked-out hypothetical! In Florida, after particularly bad hurricane seasons, many retailers of food, water, gas, and goods needed to rebuild homes, jack up their prices by as much as they think they can legally get away with. Now, these people's companies would not have survived if it weren't for the now-homeless people supporting their institutions over the years. I'll allow that some moderate mark-up is reasonable, albeit not a great moral position, but what about when stores start charging a $25 for a gallon of water? What about $100? What about $1000? What if stores simply refused to sell water and food? What if people died because of their price gouging? Could they be charged with murder? After all, they could reasonably expect that their refusal to sell neccesary things like food and water to hurricane-stricken people would kill some of them.
If they refused to sell their goods, then they would go out of business. If they charged prices that most people couldn't pay, then they would go out of business. A business wants to stay in business, so it will therefore not refuse to sell its goods.

"A moderate mark-up," besides not being immoral, is necessary. Prices are controlled mostly by the law of supply and demand, at least when someone wants to stay in business. As the demand for those goods rises, while the supply remains the same -- lower than people would like ;-- the price of those goods naturally rises.

No, they could not be charged with murder by any legal standard, not condemned for it by any moral standard, no more than I could be charged with murder by not selling all of my possessions and giving to hungry people.

My solution to the now-homeless people: stop building your homes on sand. As Ravena tells me, about 90% of those that lose their homes during hurricanes are people who build their homes right on the beach. Those homes are regularly demolished, and the same people (with government disaster-relief aid) simply build their homes back on the same spot, where they're wiped out next hurricane season.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 12:02 PM   #137
Panther
 
Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The middle of nowhere, on the outskirts of the boonies.
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Untrue. You could hardly argue, for instance, that there are "multiple" equally valid "versions of the truth" in regard to science and natural laws -
Yes you can. You can argue anything, as you're seeing now.

And there are as many versions of truth as there are people on hte planet to perpetuate it. I know for a fact that Cherry Mountain Dew is horrible, nasty, and vile. I have a couple friends who know for a fact that I'm insane and have no tastebuds because of this truth.

Truth is subject to how it is perceived. That's why finding a collective truth that might be an accurate representation of what happened in a situation is so difficult. Even if nobody lies, the stories will not line up exactly in any circumstances, yet every testimony given is the God honest truth.
__________________
Will we walk all night through solitary streets?
The trees add shade to shade, lights out in the houses,
we'll both be lonely.
Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love
past blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent
cottage?
-Allen Ginsberg, A Supermarket in California
Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 12:08 PM   #138
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Well, after typing a probably too-lengthy response to this, I accidently closed out the window. So, here it is in brief (not that it makes much difference. Nobody ever wins these online arguments anyway.):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loy
Asurai-I love how you pull the "we beat the nazi's" as a "retort" against my assertion about the military. Especially when it was pointed out that 1-the nazi's were NOT the reason we went to war in the first place, 2-we had plenty of sympathisers/supporters of the Nazis (and Fascists) within our country before, during, and after the war
Regardless of the purity of our motives, we still removed the Nazis from power, just as we ended slavery in the United States although the Civil War had not been originally fought for that purpose.

Yes, we had Nazis here. So? They weren't in power, they weren't commiting genocide, and they weren't trying to take over the country by force. Or are you advocating that we suppress unpopular political parties?

Quote:
However, as far as pushing the hegemon, we can speak about the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American war, the Spanish-American war, the anti-Bolshevik "police actions" (during and directly after the fall of the Tsar Dynasty), our whole history with pre-commie China, the central/south Pacific islands, our entrance into the two big wars (do you really believe those reasons as being altruistic, or are you just whitewashing them to "defend" our history?)
I really don't give a damn about our reasons' being or not being altruistic. We went to war with Germany and Japan in Europe and the Pacific so that we wouldn't have to fight them in New York and California. In the process and as a result, we liberated millions of people from fascism -- tell them that we were extending our hegemony.

Quote:
our many involvements in the Middle East and Central/South America throughout this century (Panama's is a VERY interesting history of exploitation on the US part, but there's also Columbia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Peru
Terrorist states, dictatorships, and thugocracies are not entitled to protection by the rule of law. Particularly not when they violate our laws on a daily basis.

Panama. Yes, poor Panama. We built an evil canal, which evilly provided massive amounts of revenus, and then evilly handed it back to the government of Panama.

Guatemala. A communist revolution, in a bloody coup, usurped power from the legitimate government. We were at war with the communists, incase you don't remember. There were about a thousand American citizens in Guatemala at the time. Since they were caught amid the bloody purges that communists regularly perform, we decided to do what was necessary to protect them. Yes, the invasion went poorly, but it was perfectly justified.

Cuba. A communist dictatorship 90 miles from the United States acquired nuclear weapons, and it's an act of hegemony to attempt to remove the dictator who wanted us dead from power?

Haiti. The United States backed a rebel group that had legitimate claims against a horrendously corrupt government.

Africa. Sorry, but we abolished the slave trade. Of course, you may well be referring to the defensive actions known as the Barbary Pirate Wars as an act of hegemony.

Iraq. Riiight. We wanted their oil. That's why we immediately seized all of their oil fields after the invasion, which is why we're flooded with the stuff and can buy it for pennies a gallon.

Bosnia was screwed up, I'll grant you that.

Quote:
I could also speak about how our military troops were used to kill off American citizens who wanted such outrageous things as decent wages, livable cities, and equal rights throughout our history.
I seem to recall frequent large riots being performed by those American citizens. I also seem to recall that, when the police couldn't control the riots and the military was sent in to restore order, those American citizens attacked and threw rocks at soldiers. Only an idiot throws rocks, which can do serious damage, at armed soldiers.


Good wages, good cities, and equal rights are great goals. I support them myself. But when their advocates advocate widespread violence. . . .

Quote:
(In fact, the main argument for raising taxes in the begining of our country was to raise a standing army. Why did we argue to raise an army. To put down anti-elite rebellions such as Shay's Rebellion. And what caused Shay's Rebellion? High Taxes that caused many farm closures.)
Shay's Rebellion, actually, was caused by a recession, during which many farmers were unable to pay off their debts. According to the debt laws of the time, those who owed but did not pay were thrown in jail, and this was done to many farmers who didn't pay their debts. The farmers petitioned the government to print out masses of paper money under the mistaken assumption that this would lead to prosperity, which the government rightly refused to do. A few farmers, resenting having to actually pay back the money that they owed, decided to lead a rebellion, and a lot of other farmers who blamed the recession on the government joined in. That is to say, they commited treason. You fill in the rest.

Taxes? The tax rates in those days were the tiniest fraction of what we pay today, but you don't see us rioting and rebelling over having to hand 50% of our incomes to the government.

Quote:
I also love how you're now speaking of pre-emptive actions as being morally justifiable. Maybe in your view of morality they could be, but I'm gonna go with a legal view here. Say somebody is threatening to harm me, and I kill him. Am I let go? Actually, I'd be charged with murder (killing somebody with malicious forethought), because no matter how many threats he makes towards me, I can't do shit unless he attacks me first.
You can, actually, but I'll get to that in a moment.

The rest of that statement was obvious. Unless the person was holding a knife to your throat when he made the threat, you would be charged with murder for killing him, since he hadn't actually resorted to force to violate your rights yet.

You can, however, inform the police of his threats, in which case they (and you) will act pre-emptively to prevent a murder by arresting and charging that person. Threatening death to someone is illegal for just that reason.

Quote:
as a clarification, it was actually illegal for citizens in Nazi Germany to kill jews.....harm, attack, slander, yes all these were accepted, but to kill was only allowed so by the state.
I withdraw that comment of mine, then.

Quote:
Does this mean that just because I'm an American I have to accept everything about this culture?
Of course not, but not shitting over it would be nice, as would showing a bit of respect to the reason why you're not living under a Japanese/German hegemony at the moment. Unlike the alleged American hegemony, they tended to be rather more violent to dissenters among their own citizenry.

Quote:
As far as defending me, let me make it as clear as possible to you....nobody "defends" me, I defend myself. Whilst I do see a need for cops and the military, those needs are more for others who really don't understand the meaning of freedom.
People who need the military to defend them from dictatorship and invasion don't understand freedom?

Quote:
See, as any sociologist will tell you, people, as a whole, need rules and regulations, not so much to protect them, but more as a way for self-identification. "I don't eat pork because I'm a muslim", "I don't celbrate Christmas because I'm Jewish"....there's plenty of other examples I could use.
True, but it's completely irrelevant to the preceding statement, that the military is for those "who really don't understand the meaning of freedom."

'Freedom' is the absence of government coercion to violate one's rights. Sociological-intellectual masturbation aside, that's all that it means.

Quote:
But the point is this-nothing differentiates Americans from anybody else in the world, throughout history, in any signifigant way except for the rules we have.
That's somewhat like saying that nothing differentiates Bill Gates from myself in any significant way except the incomes that we make.

The rules that America has protect individual rights and limit government coercion -- that is, they establish freedom. That is what makes America entirely unique in the annals of history. No-one before us had done it, and to today few people understand it.

Quote:
As far as protection....I have never called a cop to settle a dispute, since I found it more constructive (and interesting) to speak with the other person.
This is all well and good, but for dealing with criminals, I prefer someone who can throw them on their asses in jail.

Quote:
I grew up in a military family. I grew up in military towns. I have plenty of friends who are military. However, I don't expect them to "defend this country" because I know (and they know, ultimately) that that's not what they're supposed to do.
That line is really getting annoying, as is your general confusing secondary consequences with primary causes.

I grew up in a military family, too. The vast majority of my relatives have been in the military. Their primary job is not to kill, which is why for nearly a decade the military was involed in no major conflicts. If the military existed only to kill, we would regularly be engaged in slaughtering people just for the sake of slaughtering them. But we're obviously not, particularly when you take into account that we try to limit casualities whenever possible through the use of smart bombs and accurate targetting.

Quote:
I could also throw this your way by saying "if you're so gung-ho about the role of our miltary, why the fuck don't you join?", but then I'd have to laugh.
Because I plan on getting a college education before I apply to Officer Candidate School for the Army. It's required for that particular institute, after all.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 12:22 PM   #139
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther
And there are as many versions of truth as there are people on hte planet to perpetuate it. I know for a fact that Cherry Mountain Dew is horrible, nasty, and vile. I have a couple friends who know for a fact that I'm insane and have no tastebuds because of this truth.
Wait. You were never taught the difference between an opinion and a fact? Holy fuck, our schools are worse than even I thought.

Quote:
Truth is subject to how it is perceived. That's why finding a collective truth that might be an accurate representation of what happened in a situation is so difficult. Even if nobody lies, the stories will not line up exactly in any circumstances, yet every testimony given is the God honest truth.
Truth is not subject to perception.

And you're wrong. Finding a "collective truth" is so difficult because people often mistake what they see. Regardless of who knows or doesn't know it, and regardless of how horrendously or slightly wrong people may be about a particular event, the fact remains that that event happened as it happened.

Example: people give incorrect testimony during a trial, and a person is convicted on that evidence. Later, it becomes learned that they were incorrect about what they saw, and that the convict was actually innocent. Would you argue that because they thought that they perceived him commiting the crime, their brainwaves actually altered reality so that he became guilty when they (mistakenly) perceived him to be guilty? That he did commit the crime in the past when they thought in the present that he had commited the crime?

There is one reality, one truth, and how a person perceives it is irrelevant.

The only alternative is: the law of identity is invalid; the different people perceived events which, although located in the same time and space, was different; and the different people exist in alternate dimensions from this one, while remaining able to communicate with and perceive each other. Each of these violates a fundamental rule of science.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 01:12 PM   #140
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
I see you are substituting murder for the word killing, which implies your acceptance of the latter so let’s move on. I also see you have omitted theft, so again that insinuates you’re perfectly fine with that given the correct version of the occurrence.
I omitted theft for no particular reason, and I substituted 'murder' for 'killing' for no other reason than that killing is not always wrong, while murder is.

Quote:
On the flip side, I would not look so kindly if the situation were reversed, if say it was a 23 yr old man and a 16 yr old girl. Notice I even change the maturity sense of the phrase? It’s not that I don’t think a 16 yr old girl isn’t mature enough to enter in relations with an older man, but that men have, inherently though the ages, taken advantage of the opposite sex and my morality would automatically call into suspect that man’s intentions.
Understandable, but I still disagree: no matter the circumstances, I treat someone as innocent until proven guilty regardless of sex, race, or any other factor.

Quote:
True, and quit inserting natural laws in place of humanistic design.
That's my point: I don't recognize morality as being designed by humans, while you do. In my view, it simply is.

Quote:
Both truth and morality are subject to popular opinion.

You are only right when everyone else (the vast majority) thinks you are, and when they don’t you’re wrong.
If I stated that 2+2=4, and everyone else in the world said that 2+2=5, I would be right and they wrong. If everyone else stated that freedom is slavery, they would be wrong. End of discussion.

Quote:
You see this type of behavior in fundamentalists, you know, fanatics…people who have been given a version of a truth and refuse to accept any other possibilities.
You also see it in scientists and mathematicians.

Quote:
And let’s talk about the word truth. Linguistically, it’s a confusing fucking word. It has a lot of meanings, and most of them are dependant on the point of view of the person spreading them, and the person or persons accepting them.
Yes, but that does not influence the world itself.

Words are not actual ideas, they are crude verbal representations of concrete ideas. Any confusion that results from them is the result of imperfectly mapping words onto concretes, and that confusion has absolutely no influence on reality.

Quote:
To say there is only one truth is on the level of absurdity.

*NOTE* Truth need not be factual. A Fact, and a Truth, are two entirely different things.
From Webster:

fact, n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

truth, n.
Conformity to fact or actuality.


Truth and fact are perfectly synonymous. The only main difference is that a fact tends to pertain to a particular occurence or reality, while 'truth' is generally used to mean the sum of all facts.

Quote:
See, you are working in circles of black and white. You bring up capital, which helped produce the goods of the rich country, but that capital was raised on the backs of the poor country. I also made mention of rich in materials, but you must have skipped over that bit.

So the country, which is poor and dependant upon the goods of the rich country has an obligation to its people to ensure their welfare. They would be wrong not to try and secure those materials, and are even obligated to.

The rich country has every right to sell to whom it chooses, but since they have crated a dependency with the poor country, they are also obligated to bare in mind the poor coountry’s welfare, in respect to any actions and tariffs it might impose.
Stating that someone is arguing in black-and-white is not a refutation.

What capital was raised "from the backs" of the poor country, was duly paid for and purchased by the rich country. And it's most often the wealthy that provide capital, which, in turn, tends to increase as prosperity increases.

I didn't notice the "rich in materials" part; did it apply to the rich country or poor country?

The rich country did not create a dependency. Unless we're talking about extremely high levels of government intervention (which I would not defend; I defend only capitalism), it did not point a gun at the poor and say, "Buy or die."

Note that I don't support the rich country's closing down the free market. That is contrary to the principles of free trade, and I believe that it should continue to provide whatever the poor country can purchase. However, theoretically, if it did so, the poor country has no right to those goods that it did not produce.

Quote:
They also have the honored obligation of safeguarding their country’s resources, and when the poor country comes to war, are forced to retaliate.

Two countries enter, one country leaves. These are the rules for Thunderdome.
LOL. And perfectly true, applying also to the richer nation: it is obligated to defend its citizens' property from seizure. (Of course now that I reflect more, since it's showing a high degree of government intervention in private affairs, that government created the problem to begin with, and it most likely takes the form of a socialist dictatorship. In which case, it violates the rights of its own citizens and has no right to exist as such, and I'm sure that the entrepeneurs would love to see that government fall, in part so that they could continue to sell to the poor country. So it depends on whether the poor country is going to war to change the rich country's form of government, which would be great and good, or to seize its citizens' property, which would be irredeemable.)

Quote:
It doesn’t matter what you think (at this point) or what I think, the decision is in the hands of the majority, and what they think. We can disagree, but until we convince everyone (the great majority) that we are right, we are wrong.
The majority is currently against gay marriage, abortion, and a great many other things which I'm sure that you're for. But I don't see you bowing your neck and saying, "Who am I to argue with society? I'll just go start voting for whoever's ahead in the opinion polls."

Quote:
The woman went to court on good faith that her monies would be restored, and they were. She did not ask for the additional two million, but a panel of her peers awarded it to her anyway, any you absolved them from any guilt. She is the most innocent of the bunch, and both the company and the jury are culpable.
I have no idea how I forgot the jury. Sigh.... yeah, the jurors are culpable, and I messed up on this scenario.

Quote:
Both were right in what they perceived was the correct action, and were working from a version of their own truths, but the company no longer holds the popular opinion and is now wrong, whereas the jury is the popular opinion, and at that time is right, but that doesn't make them correct.
At least, I messed up the scenario, but not following the same chain of reasoning that you indicate here. :-P

There are a few too many mental hurdles there for me. Being young and ideal, I don't accept the assertion that what is right isn't necessarily what's correct.

Quote:
Good thinking though, and aside from what my own truths dictate, I can follow your line of reasoning. You may not agree with anything I say, and I may disagree with most of what you say, but we can still discuss the merits anyway. And that, more than anything else, is what it's all about.
Hear hear!
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 01:36 PM   #141
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
TStone: Re the hurricanes. I then, again, withdraw those statements of mine, with the following exception:

If I own a business, I have no obligation to sell anyone anything at any price. Of course, I would prefer to stay in business.

Consumers have no right to consume, only to buy what is offered for sale if they can afford it. But $25 for a gallon of water (does it get so high? I've only seen about $10 for a gallon during bad storms here) is absurd: it didn't cost near that to package and market a gallon of water.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 08:21 PM   #142
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
If they refused to sell their goods, then they would go out of business. If they charged prices that most people couldn't pay, then they would go out of business. A business wants to stay in business, so it will therefore not refuse to sell its goods.
It's certainly possible that store owners would be afraid of opening of their doors to a mob, scared of their wares being stolen. Or they could just want to keep all the food and fresh water to themselves, their families, and their friends.

Quote:
"A moderate mark-up," besides not being immoral, is necessary. Prices are controlled mostly by the law of supply and demand, at least when someone wants to stay in business. As the demand for those goods rises, while the supply remains the same -- lower than people would like ;-- the price of those goods naturally rises.
It's "necessary" according to the rules of market-based economic theory, not morality. I am quite familiar with the theory of supply and demand, some might say too familiar, but this isn't a discussion about economic theory.

Quote:
No, they could not be charged with murder by any legal standard, not condemned for it by any moral standard, no more than I could be charged with murder by not selling all of my possessions and giving to hungry people.
That's not an equivalent situation-you as a private citizen may not have any special obligation to provide other people with amenities like food, water, tools, etc. If you owned the only grocery store on an island with its only bridge to the mainland and its one port destroyed, and you refused to sell things for less than a king's ransom, you would be charged with something, because I'm pretty sure raising prices beyond a certain level after a natural disaster is illegal. And if, as a result of commiting this crime, people die-voila, manslaughter charges. (I have no idea if this actually happens or could happen, but I can't find anything logically wrong with it. Of course, I am vain.)

Do you still believe that there is no moral standard under which a person acting in this way could be condemned?

Quote:
My solution to the now-homeless people: stop building your homes on sand. As Ravena tells me, about 90% of those that lose their homes during hurricanes are people who build their homes right on the beach. Those homes are regularly demolished, and the same people (with government disaster-relief aid) simply build their homes back on the same spot, where they're wiped out next hurricane season.
I hope you don't actually think that's a "solution." That's like a free ride when you've already paid. (Groan, I know, I know.)

If people stopped building/buying oceanfront property here, the economy of South Florida would completely collapse. We rely a great deal on tourism, and tourists come here mainly for the beach. And homes aren't "regularly demolished." Notice I said "after particularly bad hurricane seasons"-those don't come around often. Last season's four strong hurricanes in a row were a total rarity, and even more so the fact that some of them went pretty deep onto the mainland. Hurricane Andrew caused some of the worst damage in the US's recorded history. Usual hurricane seasons don't wreck houses. I've slept through hurricanes.

But we could move this scenario away from Florida (which a minor idol of mine has suggested we should just nuke for all the damn trouble it causes) and take it to Southeast Asia, after the tsunami. They couldn't expect to be hit by that thing. I can't imagine how price gouging wasn't widespread after that, when these tons of people with their homes wiped out and not exactly the deepest pockets were trying to survive. No moral standard with which to criticize the price gougers? I can't believe that. Market-based economics is not, or should not, be the highest factor in considering the morality of an act.
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2005, 09:18 PM   #143
Panther
 
Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The middle of nowhere, on the outskirts of the boonies.
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Wait. You were never taught the difference between an opinion and a fact? Holy fuck, our schools are worse than even I thought.
I used a more lighthearted example than the others were giving to break the monotony. I could have pointed out how suicide bombers know they're going to heaven to kick it with their god when they do what they do, but everyone else thinks that they're the soul of evil; but I would rather attempt to keep it semi-lighthearted.

Quote:
Truth is not subject to perception.
Everything that a human being experiences is. If we could see a situation from every possible angle, and know every intimate detail of everything that happened to us and around us, our heads would explode before we learned how to sit up on our own.

Quote:
And you're wrong. Finding a "collective truth" is so difficult because people often mistake what they see. Regardless of who knows or doesn't know it, and regardless of how horrendously or slightly wrong people may be about a particular event, the fact remains that that event happened as it happened.
Yes, but what is taken as truth is the misperceptions and various other observational shortcomings. We can never know the absolout truth of any situation, ever, even if we witness it ourselves.

Quote:
Example: people give incorrect testimony during a trial, and a person is convicted on that evidence. Later, it becomes learned that they were incorrect about what they saw, and that the convict was actually innocent. Would you argue that because they thought that they perceived him commiting the crime, their brainwaves actually altered reality so that he became guilty when they (mistakenly) perceived him to be guilty? That he did commit the crime in the past when they thought in the present that he had commited the crime?
What that person said and believed was the truth to them. No, the events did not alter, but what they know as true was what they testified. All we know as human beings is what we percieve. That is the ony truth we ever have.

Quote:
There is one reality, one truth, and how a person perceives it is irrelevant.
What good does that truth do then? Yes, events happenthe same for everyone, but that doesn't matter, because not everyone perceives them to happen the same way.

Quote:
The only alternative is: the law of identity is invalid; the different people perceived events which, although located in the same time and space, was different; and the different people exist in alternate dimensions from this one, while remaining able to communicate with and perceive each other. Each of these violates a fundamental rule of science.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that truth to you is not nessisarily truth to me, regardless of what actually happened. Say you're joking around with Tstone, and call him a name. The truth that you have is that you're joking around. The truth that I have might be that you're being an ass. The event doesn't change, but our personal ideas of truth are wildly different. While you have a better grasp of the actual event than I do, being able to see more angles than me, you still don't know the whole truth, because you can't see from the eyes of all the people who read this hypothetical post (Note: I am not in anyway sayign tha you wouild ever call Tstone, or anyone else, a rude name. I just needed an example). All that we have is our own personal truths based on what we know, which is based on what we perceive.

Our ideas of truth are based on our perceptions.
__________________
Will we walk all night through solitary streets?
The trees add shade to shade, lights out in the houses,
we'll both be lonely.
Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love
past blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent
cottage?
-Allen Ginsberg, A Supermarket in California
Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2005, 02:57 PM   #144
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
Excellent point. I missed this idea completely in my original rebuttal, and I thank you for offering it.
Thanks, and you're welcome. (There should be an all-purpose word or phrase for that-it's so awkward.)

Quote:
Any gross markup of goods, above the percentage of tolerance for fair market value, is criminal and punishable in my state.
That's what I thought, but I was too lazy to look it up, and didn't want to get caught in saying it was definitely so.
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2005, 06:23 PM   #145
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
You’re starting to get it. If you said 2+2=4, and everyone else believed 2+2=5, then 5 it is. It doesn’t mean it’s really 5, just that everyone is giving 5 when you give them two 2’s. If you were to give someone only 4 when they gave you two 2’s, then you would be cheating them, and likely get pummeled for it, because everyone believes it’s 5. I’m sorry to say that 2+2=5 until you can convince everyone it is really 4.
They can believe what they want. 2+2=4; that's an absolute fact that is and will always be true, regardless of how many people believe otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther
Everything that a human being experiences is [subject to perception]. If we could see a situation from every possible angle, and know every intimate detail of everything that happened to us and around us, our heads would explode before we learned how to sit up on our own.
Reality is not contigent upon human experience, so that entire example is invalid.

Quote:
We can never know the absolout truth of any situation, ever, even if we witness it ourselves.
Omniscience is not a necessary standard. Whether we know it or not, that absolute truth exists. Blame our lack of godhood rather than a lack of absolute reality.

Quote:
What that person said and believed was the truth to them. All we know as human beings is what we percieve. That is the ony truth we ever have.
Just because I think that something is true, it is not necessarily so. Regardless what you, I, or 6 billion people believe happened, one certain thing happened independent of us. Now you're not even arguing that there isn't an absolute reality; you're simply saying that there is, but we can't know it.

We can. 2+2=4, now and forever. I can demonstrate and prove it any number of ways. A triangle cannot have two right angles; I can demonstrate and prove it in any number of ways, as many times as you like. That rock is not a pillow; I can demonstrate and prove it in any number of ways, as frequently as you like. I'll prove it today, I'll prove it tomorrow, and I'll prove it on February 3, 2056 -- and these will still remain absolutely true.

Quote:
What good does that truth do then? Yes, events happenthe same for everyone, but that doesn't matter, because not everyone perceives them to happen the same way.
Irrelevant. A lunatic's view of reality is not a standard. The good that that truth does, is science: science rests upon the axiom that reality exists the same for everyone, and that things can be observed, tested, and proven. Adding oxygen to iron will result in rust; it will not at another time result in water. Inhaling pure carbon dioxide for an extended period of time will result in death; it will not at another time result in comic-book super powers.

Quote:
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that truth to you is not nessisarily truth to me, regardless of what actually happened. Say you're joking around with Tstone, and call him a name. The truth that you have is that you're joking around. The truth that I have might be that you're being an ass.
That would be an opinion. The truth would be that, for whatever reason and for whatever perceived effect, I called him a name.

Quote:
Our ideas of truth are based on our perceptions.
Yes, of course. But truth exists independent of our perceptions, and because it exists, and because we perceive only that which exists, we can know absolute truth. The angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees, and any high-school student is capable of learning that absolute truth as truth (as fact), not as arbitrary perception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Granny
It's certainly possible that store owners would be afraid of opening of their doors to a mob, scared of their wares being stolen. Or they could just want to keep all the food and fresh water to themselves, their families, and their friends.
Right. So? It's their food and their fresh water: if they want to keep it to themselves and their families, they can.

Quote:
I am quite familiar with the theory of supply and demand, some might say too familiar, but this isn't a discussion about economic theory.
But it is. We're discussing a business transaction, a sale, and the level of prices involved. That falls within the sphere of economics.

Quote:
That's not an equivalent situation-you as a private citizen may not have any special obligation to provide other people with amenities like food, water, tools, etc.
A businessman is a private citizen, not a government employee. There is no difference between my property and the property of a businessman, except that he has more of it.

A sign displayed by most businesses says, truly, "This is my establishment. I reserve the right to refuse service."

Quote:
If you owned the only grocery store on an island with its only bridge to the mainland and its one port destroyed, and you refused to sell things for less than a king's ransom, you would be charged with something
More than that, I would go out of business. Once the disaster were over, someone else would take advantage of the fact that I'm an asshole to start a grocery store, and the citizens of the island would naturally refuse to buy anything else from me, since I had tried to screw them over. On a small island like that, I would lose 100% of my customers. In short, it's not good business.

Or more likely, the government would temporarily declare a state of emergency and, on those grounds, order me to lower my prices or face unpleasant consequences. Price-hiking is, of itself, not illegal, I believe; only during a state of emergency. (Feel free to correct me.)

Anyway, a businessman is a private citizen, not a government employee, so his property is his.

It'll never be done, but here's my ideal solution to price-hiking: any business wanting to do business on that small island has to sign a contract to the effect that he will not raise prices in the event of being cut off from the mainland or of hurricanes. Since it controls the prices, socialists are happy; since it's a voluntary contract rather than forced control, capitalists are happy. Mostly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
Have I said humans created morality, or morality created we humans? I don’t remember, but I’m apt to disagree with either assumption, depending on my mood and what everyone else is saying.
TStone, for that line alone, I just have to love you.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 02:53 PM   #146
Loy
 
Loy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 408
OK, so I've been SIFFing it up for the past few weeks, and have had no time to log on....I've also seen how nicely this little discussion has gone along, however, I'd like to point out a few things Asurai-

You're little response to my post about our history with military use is, to put it lightly, one of the most ignorant, dumbest readings of history I've ever read in my life. I could pick apart what you got wrong, but frankly, I have about 15 minutes before I have to be at work, and it'd take me about 3 hours of typing before I even got about halfway through it all. However, I'm not calling you stupid. In fact, I don't think you made these statements out of sheer ignorance of history at all. (I'll get back to this point in a moment).

See, what I've noticed about your argumnents isn't an argument based upon any kind of moralistic viewpoint, at least as morality is understood on a linguistic level. See, the term "morality" implies an over-riding set of rules and conditions for ones viewpoint. However, when one pores over your posts, one thing becomes clear-what your posts are filled with are excuse-making.

Now, this is nothing new to me. In fact, "excuse-making" is what I've (sadly, I must admit) come to expect from anybody who argues from a "moralistic" stance anymore. (Do I really need to give examples when they're all around us in abundance)?

Now, does this imply that excuse making is immoral? Not neccesarily. However, what these excuse-makers do is cast doubt upon a stance different from their own (for example, that there is no such thing as a morality that isn't created by those expousing it) without providing anything to truly back up their views. Whilst you have made some good arguments against certain points of other peoples arguments, you have yet to actually prove (or even really argue) your point.

Now, here comes the second part of how you imply your side is right-your mishandling of facts. As I said earlier, your whole history lesson is full of holes. However, you weren't tryin g to give a full history lesson, as much as you were trying to "deconstruct" certain points of mine, and, to bring it all back to my point in the first paragraph, if a full exploration of historical facts were engaged by yourself (and by others on here. I'm actually saddened by the fact that nobody else had the guts to call "bullshit" on your mishandling of facts), you wouldn't have had much of an argumentative base, now would you?

Now, how you mishandled those facts is quite interesting-in fact, it's a perfect example of certain propaganda techniques. Give one point of view, deny the validity of other points of view, and keep repeating, as loudly and as often as possible, your POV. As you've said yourself, there are such things as absolute facts. However, what you're engaging in is the spreading of a "truth" (which is based upon how facts are viewed). You have pushed (and slyly implied) a "truth" that, when all the facts are viewed, can be easilly tossed aside.

[oh before I forget....before you try to argue for American Hegemony, I'd subbest you look up the definition of it. As anybody could've pointed out (and I should've. My bad), we never tried to set up an American Hegemon in Germany. Only in Japan. Again, another example of your mishandling of facts].

Thus by doing this, you're not only changing the "truth" of a situation, but the very definition of those events, and even the language used to describe them. THIS I find most offensive. And this, I call bullshit on.

Disagree with me all you want. However, when you fuck facts up (and, as it looks like, purposely)....well, it's simply "bullshit", and should be called so.

PS-you know what the funniest part of your historical innaccuracies are? It's that I could see through them. Why is that so funny? I'm not even what anybody could call a "historical expert"...fan, yes. Expert, no. However, I have a couple of friends who could be called "experts", and since they got tenure at the University, they are called just that. So, just for fun, I've decided to print up your little post and pass it along to them. I'm sure they'll find it as funny as I did.
__________________
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
Loy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2005, 02:07 AM   #147
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Loy. So, you have limited time online -- far too little to actually point out examples of my errors ;-- and proceed to write 61 full lines consisting, basically, of "You're wrong and I'm going to make fun of you again behind your back, nyah nyah!" Now, onto what points you did raise.

No, I wasn't giving a history lesson. I wasn't aware that I had been asked to give a lecture; I had been under the impression that you and I were arguing, not educating. I did, however, make note of certain historical facts that you have yet to refute.

Yes, we created a "hegemony" in Japan. Note that they haven't attacked anyone since, and that they're now, thanks to us, a modern democracy that no longer views death as the ultimate virtue. Note also that we relinquished control as soon as the country was stable.

Quote:
Thus by doing this, you're not only changing the "truth" of a situation, but the very definition of those events, and even the language used to describe them. THIS I find most offensive. And this, I call bullshit on.
I honestly have no idea what you just said, except that it was a lengthy way of calling me an intentional liar. Examples, please. You claim that you were pressed for time, but it would have taken less time for you to point out my errors, if they were so glaring and obvious, than to go off about all of that.

By the way, you regularly make use of the "argument" that my posts were apparently so funny that you feel the desire to print them out and pass them around for a laugh. Though you so freely accuse me of propaganda (without providing details), this little tactic of yours is quite good propaganda: you call in unnamed "experts" to validate your unstated assertions about by irrefuted statements -- in other words, you say absolutely nothing, but simply attempt to leave the reader with a vague sense of "People won't like me if I say this."

Kindly, next time you feel like writing 61 lines on your limited time, at least provide a few links that argue with some substance against what I've said. As I've already done once, I will without hesitation withdraw any assertions of mine that are proven false, but I will not yield to -- what's the word that you use? -- propaganda techniques of intimidation.

Now, you mentioned that I argue against things well enough, but never attempt to prove my own position. I grant this readily, and will therefore devote the next few lines to that purpose.

On the philosophy subject. Morality, as I mean it, is based upon the foundation of individual rights and justice: the belief that every person has the right to his own life and happiness, and to everything that he creates, and that is just for it to be so; the invidiual is the only one who lives his life, who makes his day-to-day choices and experiences the hope, fear, despair, and joy that they cause, and so that he and he alone has the just right to control and use his life and the products of his life. That the unjust, the evil, is anything that uses brute force against an individual with the intention of placing a will over his own, stealing his choice and his life away from him; that once the smallest injustice is tolerated, no matter how insignificant, which claims to itself the right to force individuals to obey, that injustice is irredeemably evil and untolerable. That one's freedom is absolute within his own life, ceasing only when his rights conflict with those of another; that civil society is a voluntary cooperation among men for their mutual (selfish) benefit, and that any civil transaction in which one party benefits while the other suffers is rightly called a crime and a fraud; that government is created voluntarily for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of men, and that any government which violates its citizen's rights, by claiming the authority to control one's private life, in the tiniest way is completely immoral, unjust, and evil.

For all of its current flaws -- high taxation, government controls, and things like anti-sodomy laws ;-- America is the only nation that lives up to this morality in any significant degree. It was the only nation in all history founded on individual rights that has kept faithful to that creed.

America is the greatest force of good currently on earth. Other nations should be thanking us on bent knee. In a hundred and fifty years, we stood up to the Barbary Pirates and destroyed Tripoli, which no Europeans had yet done; spilled American blood for the sake of purging slavery from among us; followed and surpassed Britain in the Industial Revolution, providing more goods and inventions to mankind's universal benefit than any other nation; continued to raise the world's standard of living through our industry, economy, and truly revolutionary inventions; put an end to the greatest war ever yet fought, saving France from German occupation; turned Japan from a feudal society into a modern industrial nation, then convinved them to play nicely by means of, again, American blood; saved France and England from fascism and German occupation again; saved Europe (again) from Soviet domination; rid the world of several dictators, and contained others; taught poorer-than-dirt Middle Eastern countries how to use their oil reserves, even providing American labor to work the wells, granting those nations higher per capita GNP that they could imagine otherwise; sent more aid money to poor countries than any other nation has ever dreamed of doing; continued to still produce more than any other nation, to the benefit of every society that trades with us; and created the richest, most free civilization in the entire history of humanity, as evidenced by the fact that untold numbers of foreigners struggle every year, dreaming and hoping that, one day, they and their children may one day move to America.

State one nation, just one, that is in any way more moral, more just, than the United States.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2005, 12:09 PM   #148
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granny
It's certainly possible that store owners would be afraid of opening of their doors to a mob, scared of their wares being stolen. Or they could just want to keep all the food and fresh water to themselves, their families, and their friends.
Right. So? It's their food and their fresh water: if they want to keep it to themselves and their families, they can.
And you think that letting everyone else starve to death is moral? Forget about whether they can or cannot do it-of course they can.

Quote:
But it is. We're discussing a business transaction, a sale, and the level of prices involved. That falls within the sphere of economics.
Some elements may overlap, but economics is not morality. You were writing off any possible moral wrongdoing of jacking up prices in an emergency by saying that economic "law" dictates it should happen.

Quote:
A businessman is a private citizen, not a government employee. There is no difference between my property and the property of a businessman, except that he has more of it.
Untrue. Some, or most, of the businessman's property is for selling to other people. My parents' house, their food, their cars, are solely for me and them.

Quote:
A sign displayed by most businesses says, truly, "This is my establishment. I reserve the right to refuse service."
They have the legal right to refuse service, under normal situations. A grocery store that refused service to everyone after a devastating natural disaster, on the other hand, may not have even the legal right to do that. But it's irrelevant whether or not a restaurant or whatever can kick out rowdy customers. This is about the morality of an act, not the legal right. Just because I can go to a doctor tomorrow and get an abortion doesn't mean that it's morally right. Not that I'm pregnant or anything.... cough. cough.

Quote:
More than that, I would go out of business. Once the disaster were over, someone else would take advantage of the fact that I'm an asshole to start a grocery store, and the citizens of the island would naturally refuse to buy anything else from me, since I had tried to screw them over. On a small island like that, I would lose 100% of my customers. In short, it's not good business.
Yes, you would be an asshole. That's what I've been trying to say. An asshole who's morally wrong.

And less important, it may be great business, if there are enough rich people on the island to pay the outrageous prices. You'd make a huge profit, all the poor and middle-class people would die, and then you could move to the mainland and start up the grocery store again. That's moral?

Quote:
Or more likely, the government would temporarily declare a state of emergency and, on those grounds, order me to lower my prices or face unpleasant consequences.
And why do you think the government would do that? It's not pure market-driven capitalistic theory, I'll tell you that much.

Quote:
Price-hiking is, of itself, not illegal, I believe; only during a state of emergency. (Feel free to correct me.)
I can't think of why it would be illegal, unless a bunch of stores were secretly price-fixing.

Quote:
Anyway, a businessman is a private citizen, not a government employee, so his property is his.
Nope. There's a difference. Let's go back to your state of emergency example-the government can come in and force stores to lower their prices, open their doors, etc. The government can't come into my home, though, and force me to sell or donate my food. If a stranger came in off the street and started browsing through my things, that is a very different situation than if a stranger comes into a businessman's store and starts browsing.

Quote:
It'll never be done, but here's my ideal solution to price-hiking: any business wanting to do business on that small island has to sign a contract to the effect that he will not raise prices in the event of being cut off from the mainland or of hurricanes. Since it controls the prices, socialists are happy; since it's a voluntary contract rather than forced control, capitalists are happy. Mostly.
Why is that your ideal solution? I thought you said price-hiking was fine, because of the economics of supply-and-demand. Is it because it balances morality and economic theory?

And what about the capitalists who are happy because they can be safe in the knowledge that they will have a much greater chance of surviving a disaster? Capitalists live on this island-they aren't going to place ideology over their survival.
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 12:25 AM   #149
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granny-like_the_apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Right. So? It's their food and their fresh water: if they want to keep it to themselves and their families, they can.
And you think that letting everyone else starve to death is moral? Forget about whether they can or cannot do it-of course they can.
It depends on the circumstances, particularly on the supply of essential food and water. If an owner's stock is so low that he couldn't possibly keep alive more people than him, his family, and perhaps his closest friends, yes, it is moral to let everyone else starve to death.

Assuming a plentiful supply, no, it would not be moral to allow others to die. However, during disasters people tend to buy far more than they actually need -- a small family may buy literally dozens of gallons of water to last them simply a few days. Since the supply line is cut, even in this case the owner does have a limited supply relative to the demand. In order to be perfectly moral in this case, he would have to raise the price of water to an amount that would prevent buying-in-excess while still allowing the poorer buyers ability to scratch by. (Assuming that they could pay normally.)

Quote:
Some elements may overlap, but economics is not morality. You were writing off any possible moral wrongdoing of jacking up prices in an emergency by saying that economic "law" dictates it should happen.
Not "any possible" wrongdoing -- I'm not quite THAT cold-hearted ;-- but most wrongdoing, yes.

Quote:
Quote:
A businessman is a private citizen, not a government employee. There is no difference between my property and the property of a businessman, except that he has more of it.
Untrue. Some, or most, of the businessman's property is for selling to other people. My parents' house, their food, their cars, are solely for me and them.
True, actually. A retalier purchases items from a manufacturer for sale. Before being sold, those items are his, regardless of the intent -- and the law recognizes that if those items are stolen, they are stolen from him, not from the consumers-to-be. Similarly, there are a lot of people, private citizens as well as professionals, who purchase real estate with nothing but the intent of selling it for a profit later, but between the times of purchase and sale, the property is absolutely theirs. Else, whose is it?

Quote:
Yes, you would be an asshole. That's what I've been trying to say. An asshole who's morally wrong.
Morally wrong?

Individual rights are the basis of civil society. They are inalienable and necessary; without them, society is simply rule by gangs. Among individual rights are the rights of property, to which the owner has an absolute claim. You would, I'm sure, consider it evil to force an old woman to sell her home of eighty years -- the same applies to the smallest piece of property: a sale requires the seller's consent. If I don't want to sell something that is mine, regardless of the circumstances (and I having paid for the food and water, they are my property), I have neither legal nor moral obligation to sell.

In case of emergency, it would be morally good to sell freely, I don't deny -- but I do deny that it would be morally evil to not do so, since the ultimate right of property lies with the owner who purchased it, not with those who need it. The former is praiseworthy and good; the latter is simply not culpable or evil, though certainly not good.

Quote:
And why do you think the government would do that? It's not pure market-driven capitalistic theory, I'll tell you that much.
Granted, but this isn't a pure market-driven capitalistic society. The government maintains a substantial degree over economic activity, and if I remember correctly, several states have legal consequences for those who price-hike in emergencies.

Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, a businessman is a private citizen, not a government employee, so his property is his.
Nope. There's a difference. Let's go back to your state of emergency example-the government can come in and force stores to lower their prices, open their doors, etc. The government can't come into my home, though, and force me to sell or donate my food.
Judging by yesterday's Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, yes, it can. (On that note -- the SC is fucked up.)

Quote:
If a stranger came in off the street and started browsing through my things, that is a very different situation than if a stranger comes into a businessman's store and starts browsing.
The store is publicly open; your home is not. That's how it generally is, at least. The store building is the owner's property. During set hours, the populace may wander in to buy goods -- after set hours, it's considered trespassing. The same applies to your home: on certain rare occasions, such as a garage sale, your home (or a part of it) would be open to the public; the rest of the time, your home is closed, and any person on it without permission would be trespassing. The concept is the same; only the amount of time publicly open is different.

Or consider an owner who lives in a room above the store: in his case, his store is his house. Yet it remains, during certain hours, open to the public; after hours, it is closed.

In all cases, the right of property is the same: a stranger cannot come onto my property without my permission. A store is one's property as much as one's house, both being purchased. The same applies to all of the goods inside.

Quote:
Why is that your ideal solution? I thought you said price-hiking was fine, because of the economics of supply-and-demand. Is it because it balances morality and economic theory?
Not exactly moral, but simply not immoral. That solution would be ideal because it still keeps to the store owner the absolute right of his property, while still maintaining by voluntary contract that he wouldn't be allowed to starve people. So, individual rights as well as general welfare are promoted without being violated.

Quote:
And what about the capitalists who are happy because they can be safe in the knowledge that they will have a much greater chance of surviving a disaster? Capitalists live on this island-they aren't going to place ideology over their survival.
If by "capitalists" you mean the store owners and businessmen, I don't see the problem. In that situation, I would be damned happy if I had enough supplies on-hand to assure the survival of myself and my family. Is that evil? And since you make it an issue of ideology versus survival, I wouldn't sell those supplies, not even to save another's life, if it meant that my family and I myself would starve -- in other words, I value the lives of my family more than the lives of strangers.

So? I have no obligation to them, and were the situation reversed, they would let me starve while keeping themselves alive, as they rightly should. That's not social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, capitalism, selfishness, or anything of the sort -- it simply means that one has his priorities straight and values his loved ones more than he values strangers whom he does not love.

In other words, I see no conflict between ideology and survival. My ideology, in an emergency, IS the survival of myself and of those whom I love.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2005, 10:41 PM   #150
Spazik
 
Spazik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 182
What an interesting thread! Actually, I only read the first post and a few afterwards. It's a common debate among our kind. Where do we, as humans, fit in to reality? We aren't natural as evidenced by our cars, computers, and tanning salons, yet we're still driven by human instinct, human fears, emotions, and thoughts. I think it's funny to look at the world around us, and see how humans fit in.

Take a car, for example, that nice, souped up CR-X that you see racing up and down suburbia all day. It's a sleek, exact piece of machinary, the engine combusts the gasoline to power the motion, the transmission controls the gears or whatever...I don't know, I'm not a car person, but you get my point. Light, horns, etc etc. Now, inside the car is a human being, a fat, acne ridden teenager who probably has a small penis and a wigger/street racer mentality. The car is perfect, flawless, but it's pilot, it's owner, it's creator, is in itself a work of nature, flawed, imperfect, and somewhat stupid. Quite a paradox, isn't it?
Spazik is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
twilight crying goddess xxxQueenOfDarknessxx Literature 2 11-30-2010 08:58 AM
Deus Ex Daedalus TV, Movies, & Games 11 12-16-2007 04:27 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:36 AM.