The Everlasting CCCP !

[Pandemoniak]

WAr of Art, what is your mother tongue ? Seeing your prolixity of comas, it has to be french or spanish....

[GeneralTacticus]

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

Why not? "Rights" have to do with what is 'right' or 'wrong', so it clearly follows that they have to do with morality.

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

Can you point to even a single example of him doing that?

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.

Given that you seem completely inapable of understanding any kind of logic at all (e.g. your statement that you can't take apr tof your liberty without taking all of it, which is self-evidently false as your right to run down tehs treet screaming your head off has no bearing on your right to do so in the privacy of your own home), you don't really have any grounds for attacking his intelligence.

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

You said that he diaagreed with you because you addressed him as an adult. Either you were being deliberately insulting, or you have very little grasp of how people take things at all.

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.

Would you care to explain the difference? If you have the choice of one person dieing, you or someone else, you have stated already that you would die rather than makign the toehr person do so. Why?

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.

The urge to do all of those things is part of the instinct to self-preservation. Given that you reject that, why not reject the tohers, and refuse to breathe, eat, drink, or anything else?

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.

What do you think happened to smallpox?

Of course my opinion does not change what is right. My opinion does have a meaning, however, and this meaning is not "squat"

Well, ti has meaning in that you beleive in it, and hence you base your actions on it, and of coruse that it's part of the debate.

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.

It doesn't show that you're wrong, merley thta he thinks you are.

[Archaic]

I should've saved the thank you for your input for you Pan. Your sheer idiocy never ceases to amaze me.

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

Which hasn't yet prevented me utterly humiliating you in debate several times over Mr. Unskilled Labourer. Also let's not forget that even my limited academic background is far superior to yours on these issues. And if you think experience matters, then why don't you throw out all of Marx's works already, seeing as he never even worked in a factory and instead lived off the sales of his works (Nothing against using the current system to his advantage I suppose.).

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
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 ?

Thank you for rephrasing the question. It defeats his arguement even better.

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

That's debatable, but that doesn't change the impact of my point. This nitpick acomplished what exactly?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Then why are so many people self destructive or suicidal ?

And since when did we ever say that was rational behaviour, hmmmm?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
"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".

Hasty generalization.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
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.

Ever considered that I might have already read the things you were pointing me to, or rebuttals of same? I *AM* constantly researching the subject as a part of my studies afterall.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
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.

My capacity to understand is limited by the fact that I don't accept something illogical......
As for Arts.......:lol :

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
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.

And I don't care if you can't imagine it or not. It's not as if you've demonstrated any.

And as for your whinging about my debating methods......perhaps if you weren't so willfully ignorant I wouldn't be using them, would I?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic
Which hasn't yet prevented me utterly humiliating you in debate several times over Mr. Unskilled Labourer. Also let's not forget that even my limited academic background is far superior to yours on these issues. And if you think experience matters, then why don't you throw out all of Marx's works already, seeing as he never even worked in a factory and instead lived off the sales of his works (Nothing against using the current system to his advantage I suppose.).

lived off the sales of his works Thank you for selfdefeating, Marx indeed worked. Not in a factory but all works are not made in a factory. MArx did produced something, what have you produced ?

Thank you for rephrasing the question. It defeats his arguement even better.

No, it makes the question a total nonsense. And the question is not rephrased, but precised. The most important thing of all in a whole being what is essential.

And since when did we ever say that was rational behaviour, hmmmm?

Well, why should it be unrational ?

Hasty generalization.

Just generalization, by observance each time I quote you something, thats what you reply.

Ever considered that I might have already read the things you were pointing me to, or rebuttals of same? I *AM* constantly researching the subject as a part of my studies afterall.

Or rebuttal of same... how pathetic... It's like you read Newton who rebutted Aristotle so you know all about Aristotle. And you pretend to be knowledgeable.
And when you say yourself you never read them, why should I consider you already read them ? (And theres not only reading, I remind you.)

My capacity to understand is limited by the fact that I don't accept something illogical
As for Arts.

Exactly. Many illogical things do happen, and you will have to accept them. Death of a close person for example, is illogical and you 'll have to accept them -- except if your ego is too strong and you prefer to pretend it didnt happen, which wouldnt surprise me seeing the way you conduct a "debate", and which would also lead to to schizophrenia, probably dubbled by paranoia. Thats for facts. For ideas and thoughts, you'll see any kind of logic will fade off at a moment or another : when faced to experience, feelings, etc...
For example : it is logical to think that people doesnt like hard labour (ie, farm works) because its exhausting and not financially rewarding. Why is there so many young people who goes work to farm occasionally, then ? Because they like the experience of exhaustment ? because they they like things that are not financially rewarding ? because it is cool ? because rabbits are blue ?

As for arts, forget about it. You would more hurt art than it would help you, an economic school is perfect for your intellectual pauper.

And I don't care if you can't imagine it or not. It's not as if you've demonstrated any.

Wisdom
Pronunciation: 'wiz-d&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wIsdOm, from wIs wise
Date: before 12th century
1 a : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning b : ability to discern inner qualities and relationships c : good sense d : generally accepted belief [challenges what has become accepted wisdom among many historians -- Robert Darnton]
2 : a wise attitude or course of action

Wise
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): wis·er; wis·est
Etymology: Middle English wis, from Old English wIs; akin to Old High German wIs wise, Old English witan to know -- more at WIT
Date: before 12th century
1 a : characterized by wisdom : marked by deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment b : exercising sound judgment
2 a : evidencing or hinting at the possession of inside information : b : possessing inside information c : SHREWD
3 archaic : skilled in magic or divination

do you truly consider yourself as marked by deep understanding, keen discernment and a capacity for sound judgement ?
I already know you're an arrogant jerk who thinks very highly of himself and yet has achieved nothing, but I cant imagine, indeed, that you've gone that far in human aberration.

And as for your whinging about my debating methods......perhaps if you weren't so willfully ignorant I wouldn't be using them, would I?

Then why are you using them with everyone ? Because everyone except for you and those who think like you are ignorant ?

[Jamski]

From the bottom of my heart thank you Pan. My nature is too polite to say what, possibly, should have been said a long time ago. Now I fear for a reprisal.

BTW, my English teacher always said that a comma too many is better than a comma too few.

-Jam

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
lived off the sales of his works Thank you for selfdefeating, Marx indeed worked. Not in a factory but all works are not made in a factory. MArx did produced something, what have you produced ?]

Selfdefeating in your dreams. Thanks for conceeding a much earlier point in a previous about the fact that not all work need be physical work BTW.

My point was that Marx never worked in the factories. In other words, he knew jack **** about his subject matter.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
No, it makes the question a total nonsense. And the question is not rephrased, but precised. The most important thing of all in a whole being what is essential.

And this is nonsense how?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Well, why should it be unrational ?

Killing yourself = Irrational
Any debate on that? Any at all?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Just generalization, by observance each time I quote you something, thats what you reply.

Hasty generalization, because you said that for all circumstances. Not to mention the fact it's also complete and utter bollocks.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Or rebuttal of same... how pathetic... It's like you read Newton who rebutted Aristotle so you know all about Aristotle. And you pretend to be knowledgeable.
And when you say yourself you never read them, why should I consider you already read them ? (And theres not only reading, I remind you.)

I'm not the one pretending here Pan. Remember who's the Liberal Arts major and who's the one who's actually got the academic grounding in the subject at hand.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Exactly. Many illogical things do happen, and you will have to accept them. Death of a close person for example, is illogical and you 'll have to accept them -- except if your ego is too strong and you prefer to pretend it didnt happen, which wouldnt surprise me seeing the way you conduct a "debate", and which would also lead to to schizophrenia, probably dubbled by paranoia. Thats for facts. For ideas and thoughts, you'll see any kind of logic will fade off at a moment or another : when faced to experience, feelings, etc...

"Death of a close person for example, is illogical" -
Something bad does not equate to something illogical. I see you suffer from the same problem that WoA has. Go learn the subject matter for once. *YAWN*

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
For example : it is logical to think that people doesnt like hard labour (ie, farm works) because its exhausting and not financially rewarding. Why is there so many young people who goes work to farm occasionally, then ? Because they like the experience of exhaustment ? because they they like things that are not financially rewarding ? because it is cool ? because rabbits are blue ?

And this has what relation to the topic at hand? Illogical things happen, yes, but illogical arguements (Like the one you've just given) are still illogical arguements. Do you understand the concept of flawed logic leading to flawed conclusions? (You also

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
As for arts, forget about it. You would more hurt art than it would help you, an economic school is perfect for your intellectual pauper.

There's a reason why Liberal Arts majors are belittled by all other majors Pan, and it's not jealously. Now do you have a point already? I'm getting sick of red herrings and nitpicks.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Wisdom
Pronunciation: 'wiz-d&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wIsdOm, from wIs wise
Date: before 12th century
1 a : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning b : ability to discern inner qualities and relationships c : good sense d : generally accepted belief [challenges what has become accepted wisdom among many historians -- Robert Darnton]
2 : a wise attitude or course of action

Wise
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): wis·er; wis·est
Etymology: Middle English wis, from Old English wIs; akin to Old High German wIs wise, Old English witan to know -- more at WIT
Date: before 12th century
1 a : characterized by wisdom : marked by deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment b : exercising sound judgment
2 a : evidencing or hinting at the possession of inside information : b : possessing inside information c : SHREWD
3 archaic : skilled in magic or divination

do you truly consider yourself as marked by deep understanding, keen discernment and a capacity for sound judgement ?
I already know you're an arrogant jerk who thinks very highly of himself and yet has achieved nothing, but I cant imagine, indeed, that you've gone that far in human aberration.

One could say exactly the same things to you as well, Unskilled Labourer. Frankly, if one wants to determine if they're more wise than someone, why, what better place is there to prove it than on the field of debate? But then, you've been slaughtered time and time again. You seem to have Black Knight syndrome. "It's but a flesh wound!"

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Then why are you using them with everyone ? Because everyone except for you and those who think like you are ignorant ?

On the topics being discussed in these debates, yes, you are. Your demonstrated knowledge, or lack thereof, only proves that. If you have a problem with being called ignorant, go and learn the subject matter.

What is this red herring anyway? What point does it have to the discussion? Dragging the topic away from the topics you've been defeated on yet again? Or is this an attempt for a "Archaic is arrogant and mean and nasty, so he can't be right!" fallacy?

[Pandemoniak]

DP

[Pandemoniak]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Archaic

My point was that Marx never worked in the factories. In other words, he knew jack **** about his subject matter.[/size]
He didnt talk about working in a factory, but theorized a socio-economic system, to which he belonged.

And this is nonsense how?

"What is essential to your life, your life or others life ?" This is nonsense.

Killing yourself = Irrational
Any debate on that? Any at all?

/me seizes Camus' works.
I'll take it. Let's defend the right of suicide !

Hasty generalization, because you said that for all circumstances.

Taking an example is not necessarly an hasty generalization, and can on the contrary be a thoughtful generalization. You're yourself quite an expert at giving examples in order to demonstrate, while abstaining of an actual demonstration.

Not to mention the fact it's also complete and utter bollocks.

Do you want the quotes ?

I'm not the one pretending here Pan. Remember who's the Liberal Arts major and who's the one who's actually got the academic grounding in the subject at hand.

What do you call liberal arts ?
Oh, and in case you didnt notice, I was talking about knowledge in general, not in any specific case. Someone who thinks because he read a rebuttal and not the original, but is still convinced that he knows more than anyone who has read the original is either a fool, either an obsurantism. You're both, unfortunately.

"Death of a close person for example, is illogical" -
Something bad does not equate to something illogical. I see you suffer from the same problem that WoA has. Go learn the subject matter for once. *YAWN*

Im not talking about morale, yet again. But things are illogical sometimes.

And this has what relation to the topic at hand? Illogical things happen, yes, but illogical arguements (Like the one you've just given) are still illogical arguements. Do you understand the concept of flawed logic leading to flawed conclusions? (You also

Please finish your sentence, you definetly have a problem with english grammar, for a native english speaker...

There's a reason why Liberal Arts majors are belittled by all other majors Pan, and it's not jealously. Now do you have a point already? I'm getting sick of red herrings and nitpicks.

Sure, sure... Go explain that to Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and all the 70's generation of filmmakers... They sure are belittled by all other majors... As for your platonician exile of the poets, thats another topic. "Any debate on that ? Any at all ?"

One could say exactly the same things to you as well, Unskilled Labourer.

Certainly. But I do not pretend to be intelligent, but bright (lucide), not knowledgeable about everything, but decently taught on some subjects, and certainly not wise, on the contrary, I am a foolish impulsive young man. Just like Cyrano de Bergerac.

Frankly, if one wants to determine if they're more wise than someone, why, what better place is there to prove it than on the field of debate? But then, you've been slaughtered time and time again. You seem to have Black Knight syndrome. "It's but a flesh wound!"

"slaughter ? " ... "field of debate ? " ... " Black Night ? " ...
Come on, its not AD&D, wisdom is not a sum of numbers and cannot be proven by sordid in which we both spend more of our time bashing each other rather than actually trying to be wise...

I shall be wise and will stop this debate anyway. as well, please dont post too much in the CCCP thread.

[Jamski]

Question? What is Black Knight Syndrome? I assume the reference is either to the tales of King Arthur et al, or a misspelling of Black Night Syndrome. Either way I'm confused.

-Jam

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by War of Art
Question? What is Black Knight Syndrome?

NONE SHALL PASS!

...

[Jamski]

Eh?

Now I'm lost.

None shall pass. Is this pass as in "pass a test" or as in a very selfish football team, or even as some kind of guardian?

Am I too dumb, or is this an in-joke?

-Jam

[Cedayon]

I don't know the context where "Black Knight Sydrome" was used, but I think it has something to do with the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail who refused to admit defeat even after having both arms and both legs hacked off.

I haven't been following the discussion, but I think it could apply to just about any of the major participants.

[Jamski]

Hmm, I guess you need to have seen the movie. I take it this is a good thing - stand by your beliefs until death, or is it bad - doesn't know when hes beaten. Again something to debate on the CCCP thread ! Yippee !

-Jam

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by War of Art
Hmm, I guess you need to have seen the movie. I take it this is a good thing - stand by your beliefs until death, or is it bad - doesn't know when hes beaten. Again something to debate on the CCCP thread ! Yippee !

-Jam

In the film he just looks silly and pitiable, frankly. I think the analogue in a debate would be standing by your beliefs even after all your supporting arguments (ie arms and legs) have been shown to be invalid (ie cut off).

[GeneralTacticus]

Standing by your beliefs no matter what is generally only considered good when you're being threatened to make you change your mind, not when your beliefs are being attacked in debate.

[GeneralTacticus]

"What is essential to your life, your life or others life ?" This is nonsense.

No, it's not. WoA said that he would enver kill someone else to save his own life. Archaic then asked whether he valued others lives above his own.

Im not talking about morale, yet again. But things are illogical sometimes.

Death is not in any way illogical. It may seem so ('Why did that car have to have faulty brakes?' 'Why did he have to take that particular flight?' 'Why did she put off going to the doctor?' etc), simply because it appears to have been random chance, but you can't call random chance 'logical' or 'illogical', because it's just that: random.

And, of course, the logic or toehrwise of someone dying due to chance ahs no bearing whatsoever o Archaic's original statement, in which he was talking about your claim that he had a limited capacity to understand because he didn't accept an illogical argument. If an argument is illogical, it is invalid, and hence should not be accepted.

[Jamski]

Ah GT, good morning (evening for you?)

Shall we get back to business?

OK. I hypothesise that murder is always an irrational act. You disagree, and claim that in some situations a rational justification for murder can be found, namely to preserve one's own life, to preserve the life of others or to make a profit. I've just read back over the thread and I think this is correct? We can both agree, that murder for no reason at all is clearly irrational, yes? So basically, you require that I demonstrate that your "rational grounds for murder" are not rational, and then, unless you can conceive some new "rational grounds", it can be concluded that murder is irrational.

1.) You claim that preservation of one's own life is a basic instinct. If this is the case then it is not rational to wish to preserve one's own life, but instinctive. The ability to act rationally comes from our "upper brain" functions and allows us to ignore our instinctive "lower brain" functions, which are a hangover from our days as "monkeys". Therefore the will to preservation of one's own life is not a rational decision, but instinctive, a mere matter of reactions. When someone falls over a cliff, for example, and clutches wildly at the edge, they are not making a rational decision to save their own life, they are simply reacting to the situation as their lower brain takes over.

2.) You claim that it would be rational to kill someone if you would profit from their death (IIRC, there were conditions attached such as not being caught etc.) As you yourself would be the first to agree, opinion is not part of a rational argument. As this decision would involve the murderer making a value based decision where he would have to decide whether to kill someone or not based on how much he himself valued the life of this person against how much he would profit from it. In judgeing the value of a human life, which has no fixed price, he (the murderer) is making a decision based only on his opinion, as reflected in his value system. A decision made in this way is not a rational decision by any stretch of the imagination.

3.) To save the lifes of other people. This is the least tricky one. You claim that killing one man to save the lifes of 10 others is a rational decision. This is again a value based decision. Who's life/lives are most important? Its a matter of opinion, not reason.

I'm looking forward to your response, GT. I'd like to get back to the concept of crime and punishment in a free society again, if that's OK with you. If you can think of some more "rational grounds for murder" then it could be said that for every rule there is an exception, and we can move on?

-Jam

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
"What is essential to your life, your life or others life ?" This is nonsense.

In the sense that it's a question to which the answer is obvious, a question which should never need be asked, yes it is.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
* Pandemoniak seizes Camus' works.
I'll take it. Let's defend the right of suicide !

Tell me Pan, just how many times have you tried to commit suicide, hmmmm? Compared to mwa, who tried many many times, many years ago.
Now get your facts straight already. Nowhere did I attack a persons right to commit suicide. That doesn't change the fact that suidide is illogical

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Taking an example is not necessarly an hasty generalization, and can on the contrary be a thoughtful generalization. You're yourself quite an expert at giving examples in order to demonstrate, while abstaining of an actual demonstration.

*Watches as the bullshit-o-meter blows up from the overload*
An example is a very different thing to an overarching generalization.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Do you want the quotes ?

I know I said those exact words once. Many months ago. Get something recent.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
What do you call liberal arts ?
Oh, and in case you didnt notice, I was talking about knowledge in general, not in any specific case. Someone who thinks because he read a rebuttal and not the original, but is still convinced that he knows more than anyone who has read the original is either a fool, either an obsurantism. You're both, unfortunately.

I call the Liberal Arts the Liberal Arts. Don't you even know what it was you studied now?

And what about reading a rebuttal which includes the full text of the original, as I stated previous? General Knowledge matters for nothing in a debate on a specific topic, and my specific knowledge on these topics is undeniably more comprehensive than yours.
As for the rest of your statements......*YAWN*. And you think you can complain about my debating methods when all you can do is try and discredit me?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Im not talking about morale, yet again. But things are illogical sometimes.

Kindly make a ****ing point already.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Please finish your sentence, you definetly have a problem with english grammar, for a native english speaker...

Again, kindly make a ****ing point instead of turning everything into personal attacks in an attempt to discredit me (At least I discredit you through your arguements before making attacks.). And just delete the "(You also". A laptop's touchpad isn't the best cursor for highlighting and deleting.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Sure, sure... Go explain that to Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and all the 70's generation of filmmakers... They sure are belittled by all other majors... As for your platonician exile of the poets, thats another topic. "Any debate on that ? Any at all ?"

And again, this has any ****ing point to the discussion of rationality? Or is muddying the waters so that the original debate topic becomes lost the only strategy you know?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Certainly. But I do not pretend to be intelligent, but bright (lucide), not knowledgeable about everything, but decently taught on some subjects, and certainly not wise, on the contrary, I am a foolish impulsive young man. Just like Cyrano de Bergerac.

Congratulations Pan, you've reasonably described me. I consider myself to be both intelligent and wise, coming from my displayed ability to reason, and not from my own judgements of those, but from the judgements of my peers.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
"slaughter ? " ... "field of debate ? " ... " Black Night ? " ...
Come on, its not AD&D, wisdom is not a sum of numbers and cannot be proven by sordid in which we both spend more of our time bashing each other rather than actually trying to be wise...

And I ever compared this to Ad&d how? Does anyone else see the blantant red herrings here? My symbolism makes not a jot of difference to my point, which you seem to have ignored as always.

Here, I'll state it in simpler terms. You lost a debate. On that topic, you are obviously less wise. And the Black Knight syndrome was already clarified by Cedayon if you aren't familiar with it.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
I shall be wise and will stop this debate anyway. as well, please dont post too much in the CCCP thread.

Translation: I know I've lost, so I'm trying to make myself out to be the good guy and win the debate by having muddied the water with red herrings, then trying to claim a moral victory by backing out.

I just have one thing to say to that Pan.

CONCESSION ACCEPTED.

[GeneralTacticus]

OK. I hypothesise that murder is always an irrational act. You disagree, and claim that in some situations a rational justification for murder can be found, namely to preserve one's own life, to preserve the life of others or to make a profit. I've just read back over the thread and I think this is correct?

You are correct as to our positions (mine, anyway; you're the only one who can confirm yours).

We can both agree, that murder for no reason at all is clearly irrational, yes?

Yes. Murder in order to satfisfy some kind of psychological impulse is also irrational.

So basically, you require that I demonstrate that your "rational grounds for murder" are not rational, and then, unless you can conceive some new "rational grounds", it can be concluded that murder is irrational.

Yes.

1.) You claim that preservation of one's own life is a basic instinct. If this is the case then it is not rational to wish to preserve one's own life, but instinctive. The ability to act rationally comes from our "upper brain" functions and allows us to ignore our instinctive "lower brain" functions, which are a hangover from our days as "monkeys". Therefore the will to preservation of one's own life is not a rational decision, but instinctive, a mere matter of reactions. When someone falls over a cliff, for example, and clutches wildly at the edge, they are not making a rational decision to save their own life, they are simply reacting to the situation as their lower brain takes over.

Such actions taken to preserve one's own life are instinctive, yes. And in some cases (depnding on what you're trying to achieve), it is rational to sacrifice your own life, or simply to be willing to do so. As I'm sure you'll agree with me here, I se eno need to provide examples, although I can easily think of several.

However, I maintain that trying to stay alive is normally rational; it is, in most cases, preferable to be alive than dead, no matter what you want to do (e.g. if you had just led the overthrow of an oppressive government, would you prefer to be alive and victorious, or dead and victorious, assuming that this would ahve no impact on anything else?).

2.) You claim that it would be rational to kill someone if you would profit from their death (IIRC, there were conditions attached such as not being caught etc.) As you yourself would be the first to agree, opinion is not part of a rational argument. As this decision would involve the murderer making a value based decision where he would have to decide whether to kill someone or not based on how much he himself valued the life of this person against how much he would profit from it. In judgeing the value of a human life, which has no fixed price, he (the murderer) is making a decision based only on his opinion, as reflected in his value system. A decision made in this way is not a rational decision by any stretch of the imagination.

Wouldn't this make pretty much every decision one makes irrational? Whenever one does something, one ahs to make a values judgement on whether to do it, based on what you are trying to achieve. Usually this in unconscious (most people wouldn't engage in deep reflection upon whether they should shift the coffee table to give thmeselves mor leg room), but these decisions do happen, and they are base don your own values system. Making a decision based on a values system isn't irrational (of course, a values sytem based on something which is obivously false or doesn't make sense is irrational, but that's not entirely relevant). You for example, made the decision that you would not kill anyone for any reason absed on your values sytem. Does this mean that your decision is irrational?

3.) To save the lifes of other people. This is the least tricky one. You claim that killing one man to save the lifes of 10 others is a rational decision. This is again a value based decision. Who's life/lives are most important? Its a matter of opinion, not reason.

Of course. But so is the decision that human life has any value whatsoever. One could argue that as life is merely a set of molecules moving and acting in certain ways over extende dperiods of time, that there's nothing special about life, and we should trouble no more over killing people than over knocking down a wall (Obivosuly, I don't beleive that, but this coudl be argued).

[quote]I'd like to get back to the concept of crime and punishment in a free society again, if that's OK with you. [/quote[

Okay with me. I'll post up my position on the issue after dinner.

If you can think of some more "rational grounds for murder" then it could be said that for every rule there is an exception, and we can move on?

Well, I can't really think up any more rational grounds for killing (I won't use murder, as it implies that it is wrong, and I don't beleive that killing in self-defence or in defence of others is wrong), but I'll agree that it isn't always rational. Soemtimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

[Jamski]

Originally from Archaic. I consider myself to be both intelligent and wise, coming from my displayed ability to reason, and not from my own judgements of those, but from the judgements of my peers.

You really shouldn't encourage him.

-Jam

[Jamski]

Some good points GT.

I'm still not convinced that preservation of one's own life is rational and not merely instinctive. You use the argument that it is "better to be alive than dead", but the use of the word better to compare something known with something completely unknown is not, IMHO, rational. It could also be argued that this is another value based decision Hmm.

I'm just reading a very worrying book which claims to "prove" that we have no free will. Maybe all our decisions are irrational, if this is the case.

Anyway, I actually have to do some work in this office, look forward to after your dinner.

-Jam

[Archaic]

"Better the evil you know than the evil you don't"

Taking a chance is almost always irrational if that chance could potentially put yourself in a worse end situation. Letting yourself die on the hope that there might be an afterlife there that's better than life most certainly is one of those.

[GeneralTacticus]

I'm still not convinced that preservation of one's own life is rational and not merely instinctive. You use the argument that it is "better to be alive than dead", but the use of the word better to compare something known with something completely unknown is not, IMHO, rational. It could also be argued that this is another value based decision Hmm.

Much like everything else that we do. His si why it is hard, and so unproductive, for, say, evolutionists and YECs to 'debate', or Neo-Nazis and anyone, or anything between two different groups of religious fundamentalists. The values systems which they interpet the world through are either so different from one another that no connection can be made, ro require the rejection of all other values sytems out of hand, or both.

And I agree with Archaic: it would be highly irrational to die for no other reason than that you hope there is an afterlife.

I'm just reading a very worrying book which claims to "prove" that we have no free will. Maybe all our decisions are irrational, if this is the case.

Well, the book may be right in the sens ethta our thoughts effectively consist of particles moving in certain ways; however, we have something pretty close, in that our actions cannot be exactly predicted (even down to the tiniest level, due to the Uncertainty Principle). So, we may not have free will in that we can make a decision independant of our bodies and brains, but given where our thoughts come from, that's pretty much impossible (something can't be independant of itself).

btw, sorry that I can't post up my reasoning abotu crime & a free society just yet; I've just foudn that I have rather more homework than I anticipated.

[Jamski]

Question : What is/are YECs?

And I agree with Archaic: it would be highly irrational to die for no other reason than that you hope there is an afterlife.

I must be dreaming... yes I agree with Archaic too, but that wasn't really the main thrust of the argument was it?

-Jam

[Archaic]

YEC = Young Earth Creationist.

[GeneralTacticus]

Question : What is/are YECs?

Young Earth Creationists. Basically, they beleive thta the world was created exactly as stated in the Bible, with no ifs or buts about it, and if anything doesn't fit then either they're either part of God's plan, or else the person pointing them out is lying.

EDIT: cross-posted with Archaic.

I must be dreaming... yes I agree with Archaic too, but that wasn't really the main thrust of the argument was it?

Well, you were arguing that it wasn't rational to try to preserve your own life on the grounds that it was values absed decision, and sinc ethe alternative to life is death, and we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, happens afterwards, I consider it perfectly rational to try to avoid it as long as life is, at the very elast, endurable.

[Jamski]

Young Earth Creationists. Basically, they beleive thta the world was created exactly as stated in the Bible, with no ifs or buts about it, and if anything doesn't fit then either they're either part of God's plan, or else the person pointing them out is lying.

Ah, I have one of these "God planted the dinosaur bones" types at work with me. I find him intensly hard to get along with

"Better the bed that we know, than the unknown" is not really a rational reason for staying alive either. I can think of no rational reason to stay alive, I'm doing it entirly out of curiousity. I just want to know what happens next.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Ah, I have one of these "God planted the dinosaur bones" types at work with me. I find him intensly hard to get along with

I had a debate with one in the OT once. It's always hard to debate with someone who thinks that accepting he's right should be a precondition to the debate.

"Better the bed that we know, than the unknown" is not really a rational reason for staying alive either. I can think of no rational reason to stay alive, I'm doing it entirly out of curiousity. I just want to know what happens next.

Well, most of the time, we find the current situation fairly acceptable, don't we? We may want it to improve, but we wouldn't take extreme risks to change things. As we have no knowledge of what happens after one dies, unless the situation is truly intolerable, it's not really rational to give up life, which is acceptable currently, in exchange for something which is entirely unknown and may well be much worse than the situation currently.

[Jamski]

On a subject related to above posts : Monty Python's Holy Grail (not quite sure about the English title, the Germans title is best translated as "Knights of the Coconuts") is on German TV tonight(13.Feb). Looks like I can experience the Black Knight myself. What a coincidence, eh?

-Jam

[Jamski]

Well, most of the time, we find the current situation fairly acceptable, don't we? We may want it to improve, but we wouldn't take extreme risks to change things. As we have no knowledge of what happens after one dies, unless the situation is truly intolerable, it's not really rational to give up life, which is acceptable currently, in exchange for something which is entirely unknown and may well be much worse than the situation currently.

But this is a prime example of a value based decision !

-Jam