The Everlasting CCCP !

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Hercules
Thank heavens these philosophy tutorials take place here and not in other threads.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Hercules...
Thank heavens these philosophy tutorials take place here and not in other threads.
Originally posted by Cedayon...
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

Does that mean you like reading all this bumpf? I had no idea it was a spectator sport. Come on, roll up your sleeves and wade in. I mean, everyone's got an opinion, even Archaic

-Jam

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by War of Art Does that mean you like reading all this bumpf?

No, it means I'm glad it's confined to this thread so I don't have to read it everywhere else

Come on, roll up your sleeves and wade in.

My observation has told me that the potential benefit is insufficient for the time investment and likely grief.

I mean, everyone's got an opinion, even Archaic

I thought the CCCP had another word for what Archaic has

[Jamski]

Yes, but its unsupportable using a rational argument

-Jam

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Cedayon
I thought the CCCP had another word for what Archaic has

The CCCP doesnt have one voice only.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak The CCCP doesnt have one voice only.

Even on that issue? ... true, though, I was only making a joke.

[Archaic]

Give it up with the semantics WoA, it's sickening. You knew exactly what I meant, so stop twisting it.

In short.....why the **** would this person care for this other person he's mugging when part of the assumption is that he won't get caught (Or if we want to go by what you propose, that he won't get punished.) for his actions? How is it rational for him to give a damn for some stranger he's never met? I've already shown how his gain compares to his loss. What other terms are you trying to throw into the equation?


And if you recognise that being moral does not always equal being rational, start recognising that fact in your posts. It's certainly not how they read.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Archaic
Give it up with the semantics WoA, it's sickening. You knew exactly what I meant, so stop twisting it.

Archaic, man you guys stay up late! Just for my benefit? Anyway, semantics, as we discussed earlier, and a few other posters had their 2-cents-worth as well, is very important. If we use words incorrectly, we can be arguing a case for something that is a logical impossiblity, and we don't want tha, do we

In short.....why the **** would this person care for this other person he's mugging when part of the assumption is that he won't get caught (Or if we want to go by what you propose, that he won't get punished.) for his actions? How is it rational for him to give a damn for some stranger he's never met? I've already shown how his gain compares to his loss. What other terms are you trying to throw into the equation?

Are you arguing that this mugging is a rational or an irrational act? Do you really think that it is rational to steal? Please tell me why. Either our mugger is a rational man, and therefore respects his victim, or he is an irrational man, and mugs him. Are you suggesting that the rational mugger performs an unrational act, or that the unrational mugger acts rationally? Its a nice paradox. Which way round do you want it?

And if you recognise that being moral does not always equal being rational, start recognising that fact in your posts. It's certainly not how they read.

Then read them again. I thnk its pretty clear that, to give a rough paraphrase, I am saying that I am, in general, rational, and that I am, in general, against morality.

-Jam

[lucky22]

I am behind in my reading!! Aieeee!!

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by War of Art I thnk its pretty clear that, to give a rough paraphrase, I am saying that I am, in general, rational, and that I am, in general, against morality.

And, perhaps, that you, in general, use too many commas, maybe

Even more than me, which is amazing...

[Maniac]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

Quote:

"Words are symbols for concepts which define your thoughts."

PErfectly correct, but I don't see why this matters.

I just wanted to say my opinion "Semantics do matter." without having to read and write pages of text.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by War of Art
Archaic, man you guys stay up late! Just for my benefit? Anyway, semantics, as we discussed earlier, and a few other posters had their 2-cents-worth as well, is very important. If we use words incorrectly, we can be arguing a case for something that is a logical impossiblity, and we don't want tha, do we

Semantics for the use of changing the clear meaning of what you and the other person are saying after the point is bullshit. And I stayed up because I needed to talk to certain staff of my website and forums personally who wouldn't be online at a time I was midweek.

Originally posted by War of Art
Are you arguing that this mugging is a rational or an irrational act? Do you really think that it is rational to steal? Please tell me why. Either our mugger is a rational man, and therefore respects his victim, or he is an irrational man, and mugs him. Are you suggesting that the rational mugger performs an unrational act, or that the unrational mugger acts rationally? Its a nice paradox. Which way round do you want it?

It's a Rational Act if the benifits of the situation outweigh the losses, which we assume for the scenario I gave above. Respect is irrational, and your "mugger is a rational man, and therefore respects his victim" is a faulty leap in logic.

Originally posted by War of Art
Then read them again. I thnk its pretty clear that, to give a rough paraphrase, I am saying that I am, in general, rational, and that I am, in general, against morality.

-Jam

You're against Morality? Oh dear....
The whole point of morality is that we don't do things that would be rational for us yet are *bad* for the community in total. You don't seem to understand that.

[GeneralTacticus]

I maintain that it is irrational to kill someone untill you can come up with just one rational reason why I would want to kill someone.

I've pointed it out repeatedly -if you benefit from it. That doesn't make it right to do it, but it does mean that it's perfectly rational.

Killing someone "to stop them killing 10 others" is not a rational reason, it is just murder.

Given that you claim that 'human life should eb the highest value under any system', why is it irrational to kill one eprson to save ten others? Haven't you just preserved ten of the most rpecious things aorund?

There is nothing of high enough value to exchange for just one human life. It is not rational, especially under your system of values, to make an exchange where one loses something of high worth, to gain something of low worth.

You're assumign you live in a world where everyone thinks like you do. I think you need to wake up to the fact that not everyoen does, and this fact does not make them irrational. If they have decided that the life of a stranger is not worth anything to them (and looking at the matter with just pur elogic, you coudle asily argue 'What's the life of one person in a world overflowing with them? Why should I care what happens to someone else whose fate will have no impact on me?'

Your vision is filled with contradiction and paradox. You cannot see clearly. You speak of morals. Either you believe in a system of morals or you do not. You claim that it is possible to have "moral justification" for an immoral act, namely locking up a criminal. What is this rubbish? How is it possible to be morally justified to be immoral? This is why I refuse any concept of a universal moral code, as it is used by people, as yourself, to justify the unjustifiable.

Given that you don't believe an act can be justified by it's circumstances or it's results, I don't see why I should bother explaining it. Wake me when you're actually willing to consider an act in it's own context and not seperately.

It is irrational only to care about oneself. Any rational being will act in its best interest, and it is clearly in one's best interest to care, at least a little bit, about the environment, that, like it or not, we are a part of.

Nope. If the effects of your actions on society or the environment will not have any negative impact on you or the people you care about, then it's perfectly rational to decide to do something which will harm others if you don't care about their suffering, which is not irrational.

I have presented you with enough reasons for murder being irrational.

Not one of which goes beyond stating "It's irrational, and that's that."

I have also stated many other reasons not to use punishment in a "free" society. If you object to one of them, however long and loud you shout, you do not affect the material of my argument.

Ooh, look who's talking. You have yet to give a single argument any more substantial than telling, me that you're right and I'm wrong.

How is it not? It is the most primitive instinct, followed by reproduction. What is with these dumbass questions? Sorry, but I can't spend my whole life answering questions of this quality.

Perhaps I should rephrase that: why does thta make it bad? Without this instinct, we wouldn't exist; this instinct is what causes us to avoid jumping in the way of oncoming trains or leaping out of high windows if we feel like it.

I have already answered this question.

No you haven't. You've merely restated what you believe.

1.) You think it is wrong to kill.1.) You think it is wrong to kill.
2.) You think it is good to kill.
3.) You don't care either way.

I think it si wrong to kill without just cause - if someone is trying to kill you without just cause, you have the right to kill them. The same appleis if they're trying to kill anyone else. And ebfore you ask, I am agaisnt capital punishment in almost all cases because it's no more effective as a deterrent than prison, and some might consider it preferable to prison, it's expensive, and you can't bring the dead person back to life if you make a mistake.

Whichever you believe, the rational man will allow his own death rather than that of the other. I'm not going to explain this, I assume you are capable of following a rational argument in each case.

Given that none of the chocies you presented describes my own beliefs, as they don't take the situation into account, you're going to have to explain why exactly your own life has less value than that of another. If you claim that one shouldn't kill to stop others from killing you and base your argument on the value of human life, then that is what you are saying.

Oh, please shall we have no more point-by-point rebuffals. State your whole argument, rather than trying to pick holes in little quotes, and I'll do the same. Hmm? Like gentlemen?

It tends to get rather hard to point out the pages of logical errors you make without using quotes.

Archaic, read back over the last dozen posts or so. This is one of the few things me and GT both agree on (but for different reasons )

You actually believe I agree with you on the point I've been arguing against for days? Are you blind or something?

Are you arguing that this mugging is a rational or an irrational act? Do you really think that it is rational to steal? Please tell me why.

If the mugger derives a benefit from the act which exceeds the cost of doing it, it is a rational act. It is that simple.

Either our mugger is a rational man, and therefore respects his victim, or he is an irrational man, and mugs him. Are you suggesting that the rational mugger performs an unrational act, or that the unrational mugger acts rationally? Its a nice paradox. Which way round do you want it?

Again and again, you persist in your delusion that rationality has some connection to compassion. That you care about othe rpeople and consider yourself rational does not mean that everyone else must be the same in order to be rational.

Then read them again. I thnk its pretty clear that, to give a rough paraphrase, I am saying that I am, in general, rational, and that I am, in general, against morality.

Funny that you also claim that it is 'wrong' to do this and that. If you are against morality, why do you believe in right and wrong? They are the same damn thing.

I just wanted to say my opinion "Semantics do matter." without having to read and write pages of text.

Semantics only matter when people misunderstand one another. This does not appear to be happening in this case, at elast not over the meanings of words.

[Jamski]

If the mugger derives a benefit from the act which exceeds the cost of doing it, it is a rational act. It is that simple.

Again and again, you persist in your delusion that rationality has some connection to compassion. That you care about othe rpeople and consider yourself rational does not mean that everyone else must be the same in order to be rational.

Again and again, you persist in your delusion that rationality has some connection to profit.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Again and again, you persist in your delusion that rationality has some connection to profit.

Rationality is about thinking logically, not an attatchment to anything in particular. If the mugger in question is attatched to the welfare of other people, then I will be the first to admit that going off and mugging someone else would be an irrational act. If, however, he is attatched to his own well-being (the state of mind of most people), rather than that of others, then mugging would be perfectly logical as a means of benefitting yourself if it works.

[Jamski]

While I maintain that it is perfectly rational, and in his best interests, to be attached to the welfare of others.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Why it necessarily in his best interests? Of course, it can be, but it doesn't have to be. If there are no adverse consequences for not caring about others, and there are positive ones for you for acting agaisnt the interests of toehrs, then it is entirely rational.

[Jamski]

There are many reasons to be attached to the welfare of others, sure it doesn't have to be in his best interests, but, assuming that he is a "normal" (as opposed to an "abnormal") human being, then it is in his best interests. For example it is a statistically significant fact that many victims of street crime themselves have a criminal record. Any mugger is putting himself at risk of being mugged, beaten etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that you believe the Christian idea that all people are "sinners" in some way, and that we naturally tend to crime. I'm not at all convinced that our hypothetical mugger would do it, just because he could make some money, and be sure of not getting caught. Are you a rational person? I assume yes. Would you mug someone if you knew you would get away with it? I assume not.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

There are many reasons to be attached to the welfare of others, sure it doesn't have to be in his best interests, but, assuming that he is a "normal" (as opposed to an "abnormal") human being, then it is in his best interests.

Why?

For example it is a statistically significant fact that many victims of street crime themselves have a criminal record. Any mugger is putting himself at risk of being mugged, beaten etc.

Then it would depnd on whether he considered the risk worth taking.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that you believe the Christian idea that all people are "sinners" in some way, and that we naturally tend to crime.

Nope.

. I'm not at all convinced that our hypothetical mugger would do it, just because he could make some money, and be sure of not getting caught.

He might decide that it isn't worth it, of course, but that's not the only rational choice for him. IT would depend on, for example, whether he was particularly suited for mugging, had anyone else he could rely on to help him, etc.

Are you a rational person? I assume yes. Would you mug someone if you knew you would get away with it? I assume not.

No, because I consider it wrong. Our hypothetical mugger doesn't. Rationality doesn't enter the picture anywhere.

[Archaic]

I've just got to go over something GT already has.

Whichever you believe, the rational man will allow his own death rather than that of the other. I'm not going to explain this, I assume you are capable of following a rational argument in each case.

Scenario. I'm holding a gun to your head. You are also holding a gun to my head. If you pull the trigger now, you will shoot first, and I will die, without being able to kill you in return. So what's the rational decision.

Well, it's certainly not rational to allow oneself to die when that death is preventable. While you may have moral grounds against killing someone, morality is irrational, so throw that out the window. There *is* only one rational response. You pull the bloody trigger.

"I'm not going to explain this"
Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'm going to try and make my opponents look foolish for not immediatly accepting my non-existant authority even though I've got no academic or otherwise background in the topic at hand, let alone knowledge of how to debate properly."

WoA....

[GeneralTacticus]

[Jamski]

Hmm. Nice personal attack Archaic

How is it rational to suppose my life more important than another's? How is it rational to suppose I have the right to terminate your life to save mine? How is it rational to mug someone for profit, when the very concepts of profit and property are ridiculous? I am as unwilling to accept your constructions, built as they are on shifting sands of captialist assumtions as to what is in one's best interests, as you are unwilling to accept my arguments on the grounds that I address you as people who already have a basic understanding, and not as children.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

How is it rational to suppose my life more important than another's? How is it rational to suppose I have the right to terminate your life to save mine?

Because, assuming that I was trying to kill you and you had to kill me to stop you, it's a choice ebtween you dying or me; I created the situaiton, so it is logical that I shoudl pay the price for it, nto you.

How is it rational to mug someone for profit, when the very concepts of profit and property are ridiculous?

Why are they ridiculous, hmm? What's so ridiculous about the concept of getting more out of a aprticular action than you put in?

I am as unwilling to accept your constructions, built as they are on shifting sands of captialist assumtions as to what is in one's best interests,

Given that you have yet to present a coherent argument as to why it is not in your best interests to increasr your material well-being, I hardly think that you can go on to claim that...

as you are unwilling to accept my arguments on the grounds that I address you as people who already have a basic understanding, and not as children.

Basic understanding of what? Do you define 'basic understanding' as 'total agreement with you on all points'? YOu certianyl seem to define rationality in that way, as all you ahev doen wtiht ehw ord is call anything you disagree with irrational.

[Archaic]

Personal attack it might be, but it's not a logical fallacy to call you stupid after showing your arguement to be stupid, only by calling you stupid in an attempt to discredit the opponents arguement. Just like you're doing in calling me a child while continuously appealing to your non-existant authority.


Whose life is more important to you personally, not to the community as a whole. Yours or the other persons?

A question of rights is a question of laws and of morality, not of rationality. The preservation of your own life supersedes anything else.

Personal Gain =/= Profit. Stop playing the word game.
"very concepts of profit and property are ridiculous" - Your opinion means squat. And let's not forget that you're playing the word game to make attacks on capitalism out of nothing. Are you truly suggesting that the concept of personal gain is ridiculous and irrational?

"I address you as people who already have a basic understanding"
Obviously not of grammar, regardless of your playing semantics. Stop appealing to your non existent authority. Age means nothing in such a debate if knowledge, intelligence and wisdom don’t come along with it.

It was fun for a while there WoA, but it's over. You've. Been.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Archaic
Just like you're doing in calling me a child while continuously appealing to your non-existant authority.

I did exactly the opposite. I said I was addressing you as an adult, not as a child. If you choose to assume from this that I am calling you a child, that is your personal problem.

Whose life is more important to you personally, not to the community as a whole. Yours or the other persons?

I'm surprised you cannot anticipate my answer. Both are of equal worth to me personally, and in the abstract sense.

A question of rights is a question of laws and of morality, not of rationality. The preservation of your own life supersedes anything else.

Selfdefeating. To say that the preservation of you own life is the most important item on your agenda is a value judgement, as are all morals.

Your opinion means squat

Personal attack blah blah blah. If it means squat then why do you care?

Are you truly suggesting that the concept of personal gain is ridiculous and irrational?

No I typed it as a joke to wind you up (heavy sarcasm)

"I address you as people who already have a basic understanding"
Obviously not of grammar, regardless of your playing semantics.

If you want to debate in a mature fashion, then complaining about grammar and spelling, on an international forum, does not help your cause. Please do not assume that English is my first language.

Stop appealing to your non existent authority. Age means nothing in such a debate if knowledge, intelligence and wisdom don’t come along with it.

I wasn't aware I had done so. I apologise for any implication of my authority I may have implied.

It was fun for a while there WoA, but it's over. You've. Been. OWNED

I see. Pasting a very large picture means you have "won" the argument. Thankyou for informing me.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

I did exactly the opposite. I said I was addressing you as an adult, not as a child. If you choose to assume from this that I am calling you a child, that is your personal problem.

And in stating that you were addressing him as adult and not a child, you were quite transparently saying that he was a child.

I'm surprised you cannot anticipate my answer. Both are of equal worth to me personally, and in the abstract sense.

then why do you beleive that you should die before another, even if this is because the other is trying to kill you?

Selfdefeating. To say that the preservation of you own life is the most important item on your agenda is a value judgement, as are all morals.

Of course it is, but it's also part of human nature for the very good reason that without the instinct to survive we wouldn't exist. Just how long do you think that humanity would exist if we didn't try to survive?

Personal attack blah blah blah. If it means squat then why do you care?

Because this is a debate about whose opinion is right. The point he made was that your opinion does not change what is right.

No I typed it as a joke to wind you up (heavy sarcasm)

Now would you care to explain just why thes ethings are irrational?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic
Personal attack it might be, but it's not a logical fallacy to call you stupid after showing your arguement to be stupid, only by calling you stupid in an attempt to discredit the opponents arguement. Just like you're doing in calling me a child while continuously appealing to your non-existant authority.

Archaic, make yourself a reason and stop whining : you are a kid, with small experience, limited academic background and very restricted wisdom.

Whose life is more important to you personally, not to the community as a whole. Yours or the other persons?

Let's ask the question in another way : Whose life is essential to you personally, not to the community as a whole. Yours or the other persons ?

A question of rights is a question of laws and of morality, not of rationality.

No, it's only a question of laws, morality has nothing to do with "rights".

The preservation of your own life supersedes anything else.

Then why are so many people self destructive or suicidal ?

Age means nothing in such a debate if knowledge, intelligence and wisdom don’t come along with it.

"knowledge, intelligence and wisdom". About knowledge you must have a pathetic general knowledge, since you always answer "Why should I read that ? I already know it's crap". I'm positive such a curioisity and application to make your own opinions from the very source of a thing must be very well rewarding concerning knowledge.
About intelligence I dont know, but it seemed that your capacity to understand was strictly limited to an acceptation of mathematical logic, not to a general comprehension of things. Not even a try to general comprehension, neither. You should study arts, that would do you much good.
And I cant even imagine you consider yourself wise.
So you were right, you could be 17 or 3 years old, that would not make a big difference in the debate. Except that you use prohibited words in Apolyton.

It was fun for a while there WoA, but it's over. You've. Been. Owned.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by War of Art
I did exactly the opposite. I said I was addressing you as an adult, not as a child. If you choose to assume from this that I am calling you a child, that is your personal problem.

What are you, a Christian Apologist? Bull ****ing ****.
"as you are unwilling to accept my arguments on the grounds that I address you as people who already have a basic understanding, and not as children."
If you don't even see the implication in your own words there, then...

Originally posted by War of Art
I'm surprised you cannot anticipate my answer. Both are of equal worth to me personally, and in the abstract sense.

I anticipated it. Your answer's irrational. Concession Accepted.

Originally posted by War of Art
Selfdefeating. To say that the preservation of you own life is the most important item on your agenda is a value judgement, as are all morals.

Self preservation is an instinct. One needs make a value judgement to NOT preserve themself, not the other way around. Concession Accepted.

Originally posted by War of Art
Personal attack blah blah blah. If it means squat then why do you care?

It wasn't a personal attack baka. You were stating your opinion that "the very concepts of profit and property are ridiculous" as a fact. I pointed that out as the fallacy it is.

Originally posted by War of Art
No I typed it as a joke to wind you up (heavy sarcasm)

Concession Accepted.

Originally posted by War of Art
If you want to debate in a mature fashion, then complaining about grammar and spelling, on an international forum, does not help your cause. Please do not assume that English is my first language.

Missing the sarcasm on purpose now are we? I don't give a damn if English is your first language or not. Though if it's not, that'd explain why you keep needing to resort to semantics, because you don't understand the language completly in the first place.

Originally posted by War of Art
I wasn't aware I had done so. I apologise for any implication of my authority I may have implied.

Thank you for apologising for most every post you've made in the DG to date, and

Originally posted by War of Art
I see. Pasting a very large picture means you have "won" the argument. Thankyou for informing me.

-Jam

Hardly. I've got sick of trying to batter down your wall of ignorance, so I'm having a little fun. I hardly think I can be blamed when all that's being posted against me is "I'm right and you're wrong and you're mean!"

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


And in stating that you were addressing him as adult and not a child, you were quite transparently saying that he was a child.

Only if he chooses to read it that way. Or are you just disagreeing for the sake of it?

then why do you beleive that you should die before another, even if this is because the other is trying to kill you?

I have never said that I should die before another. I am saying that I would not kill the other to preserve my own life.

Of course it is, but it's also part of human nature for the very good reason that without the instinct to survive we wouldn't exist. Just how long do you think that humanity would exist if we didn't try to survive?

Pretty long time, I'd guess. I'm not particularly "trying to survive" at the moment. If by "trying to survive" you mean eating, drinking, breathing etc, then not so long. If by "trying to survive" you mean destroying anything that might threaten us, people have been unsucessfully trying to do this for thousands of years. Unsucessfully.

Because this is a debate about whose opinion is right. The point he made was that your opinion does not change what is right.

Of course my opinion does not change what is right. My opinion does have a meaning, however, and this meaning is not "squat" I notice you have no comment on the wonderfully clever big picture argument. That's good. I was half scared you'd try to tell me how it showed I was wrong or something. Thanks for refraining.

-Jam

[Jamski]

Oh, while I was typing I got another Christmas card from Archaic. Thankyou

-Jam

(At least GT understands what I'm saying, even if we completely disagree about everything )