The Everlasting CCCP ! - Page 9

GeneralTacticus · February 13, 2003, 06:03

"Knights of the Coconuts"?

GeneralTacticus · February 13, 2003, 06:11

Quote:

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

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, pretty much everything we do is values based. Our values shape the way we percieve the world, and the way we percieve the world is what we abse our decisions on.

Jamski · February 13, 2003, 06:20

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
But as I have repeatedly pointed out, pretty much everything we do is values based. Our values shape the way we percieve the world, and the way we percieve the world is what we abse our decisions on.

And I have never disagreed with this. Most of the decisions we make are either subconcious (instinctive, automatic etc) or value based. We, the human race, make very few actuall rational decisions. Do you really claim that a decision based on a value judgement is a rational one? Sure, it may be rational to choose the "best" option, but the decision as to which is "better" or "worse" is a values question.

And what's wrong with kokonuts?

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 13, 2003, 06:23

But what's not rational about making a decision based on your values, provided that said values make sense? Your values are the base from which you make your decision, which can then be rational or not.

EDIT: And there's nothing wrong with coconuts, just the idea of "Knights of the Coconuts" is something I find very funny. Sounds like something Terry Pratchet or Douglas Adams would have come up with.

Jamski · February 13, 2003, 06:34

Well having not seen the movie yet, I guess I'll find out tonight what the coconut thing is all about.

Quote:

But what's not rational about making a decision based on your values, provided that said values make sense?

1.) Values are a matter of opinion.
2.) Opinion has no place in a rational argument
3.) Who decides what makes sense?

Example : A Christian has a set of (moral?) values. These are derived from his opinions (religious beliefs). For him these values make perfect sense. For us he is talking rubbish.

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 13, 2003, 06:38

Quote:

1.) Values are a matter of opinion.

Of course.

Quote:

2.) Opinion has no place in a rational argument

Opinion is what rational arguments are all about. Unsupported or illogical opinion has no place, though.

Quote:

3.) Who decides what makes sense?

In order to make sense, it has to be consistent, logical, and based on something that's objectively true.

Quote:

Example : A Christian has a set of (moral?) values. These are derived from his opinions (religious beliefs). For him these values make perfect sense. For us he is talking rubbish.

Because he has faith in a god, while we don't.

Jamski · February 13, 2003, 06:48

Sorry, my mistake.

2.) Opinion does not make a rational argument.

Quote:

quote:
3.) Who decides what makes sense?

In order to make sense, it has to be consistent, logical, and based on something that's objectively true.

So who decides this? The problem with many discussions is that the parties cannot agree on an objective truth (Consider the Hindu idea of truth as an elephant described by a group of blind men)

Quote:

Because he has faith in a god, while we don't.

Thank God

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 13, 2003, 06:52

Quote:

2.) Opinion does not make a rational argument.

Of course not, so ti requries a rational argument to prov eit, then it is a rational argument

Seirosuly, because all argument is ultimately based on opinion, saying that nothing base don opinion is acceptable means that you are essentially a nihilistic sollipsist (sp?).

Quote:

So who decides this? The problem with many discussions is that the parties cannot agree on an objective truth (Consider the Hindu idea of truth as an elephant described by a group of blind men)

Objective truth is usually defined as soemthing that can be seen, or that can be demonstrated either physically or with a thought experiment.

Jamski · February 13, 2003, 07:09

Yes, I'm probably pretty nihilistic when it comes down to the bone. We can't really prove anything unless we start from a shared set of assumptions. That's really what Wittgenstein is all about with his endless numbered paragraphs, just trying to establish some kind of "logical" assumptions to base the rest of the arguments on. I mean, he starts with a real big one :

"Everything that is the world, is the case"

and builds up to

"One does not survive the Death"

But we can generally agree on most of our assumptions, I hope. We have to assumme, for the sake of this discussion, that we have free will, that we are capable of rational thought, that the laws of Physics hold, that we can trust that what we percive with our senses is an accurrate representation of what actually is, and so on. Without these, and other, assumptions, we would not be able to live. But we cannot "prove" these thing rationally. Are we then in the same situation as the Blind Faith Christian? I say not. We know (I hope) that much of what we "believe" is an assumption which allows us to comprehend the world we (may) live in.

With this in mind can we agree on an assumption that :
"It is in general not a rational act to take the life of a human being, although the act may be rationalised depending upon one's values concerning one's own life against the life of other people"

Would you sign your name to that?

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 13, 2003, 07:10

Quote:

With this in mind can we agree on an assumption that :
"It is in general not a rational act to take the life of a human being, although the act may be rationalised depending upon one's values concerning one's own life against the life of other people"

Would you sign your name to that?

Yes, I would.

Jamski · February 13, 2003, 08:00

Wonderful.

Shall we proceed?

*looks at the time*

-Jam

GeneralTacticus · February 13, 2003, 08:02

10 past 11 PM here. We'll have to carry on tommorow.

Maniac · February 13, 2003, 11:14

Quote:

Originally posted by War of Art
Yes, I'm probably pretty nihilistic when it comes down to the bone. We can't really prove anything unless we start from a shared set of assumptions.

Everything is probably relative.

Quote:

that we can trust that what we percive with our senses is an accurrate representation of what actually is,

Jamski · February 14, 2003, 03:48

Its just an assumption. Nothing is really real.

-Jam

Cedayon · February 14, 2003, 14:08

Quote:

Originally posted by War of Art
Its just an assumption. Nothing is really real.

The necessary and logical nigh-solopsist conclusion from such premises.

Pandemoniak · February 15, 2003, 06:21

Merry sunny demonstration to everyone

!

GeneralTacticus · February 15, 2003, 06:28

You mean those demonstrations against the war on Iraq? I saw one of them here on my way home from school yesterday. Apparently there were at least 100 000 people there - the biggest peace rally since Vietnam, at the very least. A big

to everyone taking part, wherever they are.

Pandemoniak · February 15, 2003, 06:33

Glad to see we can agree on something, GT. You're not totally insane after all.

Let the sun shine on you

GeneralTacticus · February 15, 2003, 06:35

Being a capitalist doesn't force you to support military aggression and the murder of innocent civilians, Pan

Pandemoniak · February 15, 2003, 07:00

Thats what all capitalists says, but when it comes to business, their crimes of war arent fewer than those of the USSR...

GeneralTacticus · February 15, 2003, 07:08

Okay, let's examine the total Soviet body count: 20-30 million. Total US body count: 8-9 million, tops. I'd say you've been caught in a factual error there, Pan.

Main_Brain · February 15, 2003, 10:51

Thou should add those who died because of your Embargos too...
and while we're at it lets add those who dies because US supported the 'other' side and those who died because US didnt save them..

Cedayon · February 15, 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
YEC = Young Earth Creationist.

Ohhhh, so that's what it means, k.

*imagines an Archaic v. YEC encounter*

YEC:

...
Archaic:

...

...

...
YEC:

...

...
Archaic:

...

...
YEC:

...

...
Archaic:

...
Both:

...
(further degeneration).

*shudders*

That must have been ugly

I once fought the YEC fight... that lasted about 2 days before I let the age thing go, then I fought the C fight for about a month... then the point-by-point refutation of 100-some-odd "scientific" arguments for my position, combined with the lack of any definitive scriptural backing, led me to just move on to more productive things.

But I don't want this thread to drift into something that's actually more inflammatory than where it's heading, so I'll just shut up now

Maniac · February 15, 2003, 16:34

You have forgotten this smilie.

Cedayon · February 15, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac

You have forgotten this smilie.

That (and others) are implied in the "further degeneration" part... but that is worth pointing out

GeneralTacticus · February 15, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Thou should add those who died because of your Embargos too...
and while we're at it lets add those who dies because US supported the 'other' side and those who died because US didnt save them..

Already included.

Pandemoniak · February 16, 2003, 06:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

Thats what all capitalists says, but when it comes to business, their crimes of war arent fewer than those of the USSR...

Please note that I didnt specify US war crimes only, but all those made by capitalists for business. So we also have to count the eradication of the Human Beings (Amerindians) by the spanish, the slaughter of algerians by french, of indians by the english, of palestinians by the israeli, etc... etc... We should also count the victims of all the wars started by an imperialist capitalist system, etc... These are uncountable, and so are the USSR war crimes.
Moreover, I doubt that even if we can find a precise number for each, we can simply compare the horror of the two by comparing two numbers.
All I am saying is that the Soviet Union is not less humanitarian than the western "democracies". New ways to kill, to censor, to enslave, etc... Thats all.

GeneralTacticus · February 16, 2003, 07:18

Spanish crimes against the Amerindians don't count, as they were precapitalist. Even is we indlude aboslutely everything else, we still don't get anywhere near the 20-30 million figure for the USSR, without even going into Mao and Pol Pot.

Of course, you're right that one can't compare two systems by examining their respective death tolls - by that standard, one would be better off living in Pol Pot's Cambodia than the USA, which is patently ridiculous. However... You must remember that I'm not particularly fond of the USA and the systems it imposed either, because they weren't a whole lot better than the Soviet ones (I'd much rather live in East Germany than Guatemala, for example), but there's nothing about capitalism which compels you to spray pesticides on the heads of peasants, just as there's nothing about communism that compels you to arrest people for complaining about the price of bread.

Pandemoniak · February 16, 2003, 09:46

So we both agree on the fact that both systems have been corrupted by the murders they commited, I think.

But you said I was caught on a factual error, and I still dont think that. If you compare, like you did when comparing Guatemala and East Germany, the influence of these two blocks, you can see that one has nothing to envy to the other. Again, taking simple numbers wont solve anything to this question, but I think we have to consider the scale of the USSR block and the US block, which will show that you cannot deny that the war crimes of the two blocks are about the same by simply taking in account numbers. The question is IMHO much more complicated, and should encompass freedom of politic expression (think of the McCarhysm and the Stalinian Trials), censorship (censorship by deleting in the USSR, censorship by huge amount of uncheckable informations in the US block), etc...

I perfectly know you're not a supporter of the american system, but I wish to point that all the crimes that USSR and/or its satellites committed has also be committed by the USA and/or its satellites.

GeneralTacticus · February 17, 2003, 02:40

Quote:

Again, taking simple numbers wont solve anything to this question, but I think we have to consider the scale of the USSR block and the US block, which will show that you cannot deny that the war crimes of the two blocks are about the same by simply taking in account numbers.

Why not? Given that the US block contained far more of the world than the USSR's did, and they still killed less people, I don't know how you can make such a claim.

Quote:

The question is IMHO much more complicated, and should encompass freedom of politic expression (think of the McCarhysm and the Stalinian Trials), censorship (censorship by deleting in the USSR, censorship by huge amount of uncheckable informations in the US block), etc...

The thing about political repression in both blocks was that it was far more overt and violent in the USSR than the US. In the US, people were never forbidden from mentioning something upon pain fo death - they might be studiously ignored if they mentinoed something inconvenient, but that didn't stop them fro speaking.

Quote:

I perfectly know you're not a supporter of the american system, but I wish to point that all the crimes that USSR and/or its satellites committed has also be committed by the USA and/or its satellites.

The US, throughout it's whole bloody history, would be hard-pressed to find an example of barabarism committed by it or it's proxies to match Stalin's genocide in the Ukraine - and that was just one of many Soviet crimes. The Americans committed many crimes, but they enver managed to match the Soviets in their sheer scale.