TheTank United States. Nov 20 2008 19:29. Posts 830
A guy you know wants to sell you Guitar Hero III with a wireless controller for $30. You are 90% sure he will blow the money on crack or meth.
Being bored with CoD4 and NHL 08, this is a lucrative deal.
Poll: Do you buy it?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Lets make a bigger example
lets supose one of your friends breaks up with his gf and goes completly depressed and wants to sell his car that reminds him of his gf for only 3000$ (and its worth 10000). He makes the offer to you first because your his freind, but you know hes going to make the offer to other people if you refuse.
why not accept? if you dont, another person will profit of the deal and im sure your friend would prefer that one of his friends profits from it, not some random strangers...
james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;(
0
TheTank United States. Nov 20 2008 20:09. Posts 830
On November 20 2008 19:01 Floofy wrote:
why is it a retarded justification baal?
Lets make a bigger example
lets supose one of your friends breaks up with his gf and goes completly depressed and wants to sell his car that reminds him of his gf for only 3000$ (and its worth 10000). He makes the offer to you first because your his freind, but you know hes going to make the offer to other people if you refuse.
why not accept? if you dont, another person will profit of the deal and im sure your friend would prefer that one of his friends profits from it, not some random strangers...
not realistic, if he was serious he wouldn't sell it to his friend who he hangs out with all the time. b/c then he would see it when said friend came over.
also floofy i rofl'ed at your signature. you have no confidence in yourself do you?? having to post people saying they don't want to play you in poker. But lets make this on a bigger scale...250 pages on how to get a girl. rofl.
no hard feelings buddy eh?? just joking around.
sigh...its like they are throwing money out of a helicopter and i dont have any hands...so i just break even.
I would take the deal, but justifying it by saying somebody else will is terrible.
It's an excuse often used by drug dealers as well, 'if i wouldnt sell the dope to this person then somebody else will' which is probably right but doesnt make it okay
I wouldn't take it if he used the money to shortstack
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
0
TheTank United States. Nov 20 2008 20:15. Posts 830
On November 20 2008 19:11 mrpav.com wrote:
this isn't an ethical question, its just a question
it is an ethical question b/c i am financially supporting someones drug addiction by taking great deals on games for my own entertainment pleasure. but god i am so tired of NHL 08 & cod4...
sigh...its like they are throwing money out of a helicopter and i dont have any hands...so i just break even.
On November 20 2008 19:01 Floofy wrote:
why is it a retarded justification baal?
Lets make a bigger example
lets supose one of your friends breaks up with his gf and goes completly depressed and wants to sell his car that reminds him of his gf for only 3000$ (and its worth 10000). He makes the offer to you first because your his freind, but you know hes going to make the offer to other people if you refuse.
why not accept? if you dont, another person will profit of the deal and im sure your friend would prefer that one of his friends profits from it, not some random strangers...
well Mail already said why its a terrible excuse.
in that particula example, i would convince him that its a stupid idea bla bla bla, if he still refuses i take the car and id let him buy it back from me at the same prize as soon as he gets out of his depression.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Jubert69 United States. Nov 20 2008 20:22. Posts 3191
I agree with Floofy, he's going to sell it to someone else anyway and get drugs one way another. If it's a random dude, do it, but if it's your friend, you can still buy it, as long as you help him get the hell off drugs.
On November 20 2008 19:13 Liquid`Meat wrote:
I would take the deal, but justifying it by saying somebody else will is terrible.
It's an excuse often used by drug dealers as well, 'if i wouldnt sell the dope to this person then somebody else will' which is probably right but doesnt make it okay
can you explain why this is wrong?
its the same for poker. you gotta realize most of you guys make a living of people who cant always afford to loose the money
but if you dont take it, someone else will
james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;(
0
TheTank United States. Nov 20 2008 20:36. Posts 830
On November 20 2008 19:13 Liquid`Meat wrote:
I would take the deal, but justifying it by saying somebody else will is terrible.
It's an excuse often used by drug dealers as well, 'if i wouldnt sell the dope to this person then somebody else will' which is probably right but doesnt make it okay
can you explain why this is wrong?
its the same for poker. you gotta realize most of you guys make a living of people who cant always afford to loose the money
but if you dont take it, someone else will
losing money doesn't kill brain cells
*edit
i don't get your analogy either. just thought i'd say that losing money doesn't kill you. atleast not directly.
sigh...its like they are throwing money out of a helicopter and i dont have any hands...so i just break even.
why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 20 2008 21:42. Posts 7710
On November 20 2008 20:38 Baal wrote:
why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something?
why is that a terrible argument?
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
1
HeRoS)eNGagE Canada. Nov 20 2008 21:48. Posts 10896
i dont have 30$ to waste on guitar hero
1
sirracksalot United States. Nov 20 2008 21:56. Posts 2299
On November 20 2008 20:08 sawseech wrote:
this is not an ethical question
The dude has some good times with drugs and you get a nice discount on ...wait a minute.
I would say yes, buy it, but this is guitar hero. Guitar Hero is retarded as hell, if it was a cool game though I'd stick the snappler on right here.
AWESOME mentally handicapped, slept with like 30 guys, meeting her mum on the first date, unprotected sex, 12 year old girls.FIST PUMP - YOU ARE A MAN, MY SON. -Byrensam
Preorder GH4 via him and spend that money on a telegram to his family that he has overdosed himself to death.
1
PokerDoc88 Australia. Nov 20 2008 22:48. Posts 3527
you don't have any responsibility for how he spends the money you pay with
money is a totally liquid form of value, he can use it to trade for whatever he wants; drugs, food, a new game etc.
"buy it coz if u don't, some one else will" is not unethical in this instance; it's totally irrelevant. Why? It's already been established that you have no responsibility for what he does with the money you pay with.
On November 20 2008 20:38 Baal wrote:
why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something?
why is that a terrible argument?
If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 21 2008 00:29. Posts 7710
On November 20 2008 20:38 Baal wrote:
why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something?
why is that a terrible argument?
If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine?
is that even close to the same situation?
no. try again.
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
4
Bigbobm United States. Nov 21 2008 04:07. Posts 5513
i think the real question is, why are you friends with a crack/meth addict?
watch the company you keep man
Its time to stop thinking like a bitch and think smart like a poker player - ket
4
Bigbobm United States. Nov 21 2008 04:09. Posts 5513
and if youre not friends with him then who cares
wait a week and ask him if hes got anything else for sale
Its time to stop thinking like a bitch and think smart like a poker player - ket
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 21 2008 04:41. Posts 1708
On November 20 2008 18:42 Floofy wrote:
if you dont take the deal someone else will
WOW FLAWLESS...............
Heat......EXTEND
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 21 2008 04:42. Posts 1708
On November 20 2008 19:01 Floofy wrote:
why is it a retarded justification baal?
Lets make a bigger example
lets supose one of your friends breaks up with his gf and goes completly depressed and wants to sell his car that reminds him of his gf for only 3000$ (and its worth 10000). He makes the offer to you first because your his freind, but you know hes going to make the offer to other people if you refuse.
why not accept? if you dont, another person will profit of the deal and im sure your friend would prefer that one of his friends profits from it, not some random strangers...
You dont take him up on the deal, you convince him not te be retarded.
jezus floofy
Heat......EXTEND
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 21 2008 04:50. Posts 1708
On November 20 2008 20:38 Baal wrote:
why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something?
why is that a terrible argument?
If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine?
is that even close to the same situation?
no. try again.
It is the same argument for the same type of situation, your making money by enabling something thats bad for someone else.
On November 20 2008 19:01 Floofy wrote:
why is it a retarded justification baal?
Lets make a bigger example
lets supose one of your friends breaks up with his gf and goes completly depressed and wants to sell his car that reminds him of his gf for only 3000$ (and its worth 10000). He makes the offer to you first because your his freind, but you know hes going to make the offer to other people if you refuse.
why not accept? if you dont, another person will profit of the deal and im sure your friend would prefer that one of his friends profits from it, not some random strangers...
well Mail already said why its a terrible excuse.
in that particula example, i would convince him that its a stupid idea bla bla bla, if he still refuses i take the car and id let him buy it back from me at the same prize as soon as he gets out of his depression.
If you're any kind of a friend, this.
muckv - i have an iq of 180 and i want someone to teach me how to take a shit IN the toilet.
1
auffenpuffer Finland. Nov 21 2008 05:18. Posts 1429
I instabuy because if he wants to spend his money on drugs it his own business and he has all the freedom to do so. I'm not my brothers guard.
If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine?
is that even close to the same situation?
"A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will".
"A" can be "buying guitar hero from a drug addict" or it can be "selling heroin". What does it matter if these situations are close or not? The argument is imo invalid whatever you place as "A". Or if you think that one can use "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" as moral principle then what kind of other examples would you accept as "A" - "selling heroin" being invalid for some reason while "buying guitar hero from drug addict" is ok?
ie. In what kind of situations can we accept "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" as justification (you suggest that it is only valid in cases determined by some sort of a rule that rules "selling heroin" out)?
Perhaps you meant that "selling heroin" is not valid example because this "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will"-reasoning only applies to situations where the action placed as "A" is legal? Then would you have sex with your best friends girlfriend? If you do not do it she will probably cheat him with someone else?
"A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" does not seem to be valid when A is "having sex with your best friends GF" so there has to be some less obvious rule to follow than that "A" has to be legal?
When we hear the rule by which the cases suitable for "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" are determined we can start wondering if there is any point in following a moral principle only valid in so few situations and if such principle makes any sense at all (let alone being helpful).
Last edit: 21/11/2008 06:47
1
seatown12 United States. Nov 21 2008 07:15. Posts 1193
On November 20 2008 21:48 PokerDoc88 wrote:
you don't have any responsibility for how he spends the money you pay with
money is a totally liquid form of value, he can use it to trade for whatever he wants; drugs, food, a new game etc.
This answer is obviously best
although if you really want to help try to do an intervention or whatever and get him in rehab
On November 20 2008 19:11 mrpav.com wrote:
this isn't an ethical question, its just a question
it is an ethical question b/c i am financially supporting someones drug addiction by taking great deals on games for my own entertainment pleasure. but god i am so tired of NHL 08 & cod4...
Its a trade though, and there's no way to be %100 sure what he will spend it on, it can be on food, smokes, anything. Plus i cant be responsible for his action, if i was responsible for that other ppl did i would have a shit load of stress everyday. Don't worry about things out of your control.
===== mrpav.com =====
Last edit: 21/11/2008 08:55
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 21 2008 08:59. Posts 1708
I have had multiple discussions about something similair with my friends.
They say its ok to buy a bike from a junk becouse if you dont buy it someone else will.
Well guess what? 90% of the people who buy bikes from junkies say that shit and that clientelle accounts for 90% of the stolen bikes in the netherlands.
Ye i laugh in their faces when their bikes get stolen obviously ^^
Heat......EXTEND
1
Steal City United States. Nov 21 2008 10:57. Posts 2537
what about this... what if instead... u told him that you would buy the next 30$ worth of shit he needed .... say food or whatever... would he still sell it?
it's like how people wont give bums money but they are happy to go volunteer at soup kitchens or donate to charities which will give bums food and such
this is a hard question... i mean if u were to buy his whole property from him you'd be abusing his addiction... which may or may not be ethical... i mean it's business
the question is... are you abusing his friendship? As a friend you do have some responsibility over the welfare of your friends... i think everyone on LP would agree with that...? no?
So as a friend, I think you should at least take 30 minutes out of your life to make sure u do right by him. Call 1 800 396 9389 and ask professionals what are the best methods for helping your friend. A 5 minute conversation might inform you of some counter intuitive things and not only actually save you some time in the long run, but maybe save ur friend's life.
On November 20 2008 20:38 Baal wrote:
why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something?
why is that a terrible argument?
If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine?
is that even close to the same situation?
no. try again.
It is the same argument for the same type of situation, your making money by enabling something thats bad for someone else.
try again.
This...
wtf is with your answer travis lol thats pathetic, i just prooved how "because sombody else will anyway" its not a moral justification for anything.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Feiticeira United Kingdom. Nov 21 2008 12:24. Posts 3047
There is no ethical dilemma here, maybe if the guy was using the money you gave him to fund a child exploitation ring it would be more of an issue.
The weird thing is I think McCain will win this. Im 100% certain Obama wont be elected and you guys can mark my words - Sheitan
On November 21 2008 11:24 Feiticeira wrote:
There is no ethical dilemma here, maybe if the guy was using the money you gave him to fund a child exploitation ring it would be more of an issue.
No in that case you would ask him for a free service in his new business instead of the guitar hero game
james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;(
4
[vital]Myth United States. Nov 21 2008 13:15. Posts 12159
where's the option for taking advantage of his addiction and haggling down to $25?
Eh, I can go a few more orbits in life, before taxes blind me out - PoorUser
4
[vital]Myth United States. Nov 21 2008 13:16. Posts 12159
On November 20 2008 20:08 sawseech wrote:
this is not an ethical question
talk him down to 25
i like the way you thaaaaaaank
Eh, I can go a few more orbits in life, before taxes blind me out - PoorUser
1
seatown12 United States. Nov 21 2008 14:48. Posts 1193
On November 21 2008 09:57 Steal City wrote:
As a friend you do have some responsibility over the welfare of your friends... i think everyone on LP would agree with that...? no?
Not at all. You almost definitely have a desire to help your friend but you have absolutely no responsibility to do so.
Im like a motherfucking bulletproof tiger
1
Rekrul United States. Nov 21 2008 14:57. Posts 3338
On November 20 2008 20:08 sawseech wrote:
this is not an ethical question
talk him down to 25
LOOOOL
LOvEDoM says: ALL IN WAR
1
terrybunny19240 United States. Nov 21 2008 15:03. Posts 13829
On November 21 2008 04:05 Zorglub wrote:
Floofy: Your best friends girlfriend just broke up, now do you fuck her because if not someone else will?
Yes, if you ask an ex friend or two of mine!
1
Sixpeppers United States. Nov 21 2008 15:18. Posts 179
This is so funny. No one has said that the guy has a drug problem and we should help him deal with it. Buy Guitar Hero because you want it and its a good deal. Then if he is a true friend, get him the F off drugs. Call an intervention, talk him out of it, something. I don't see why your one moral stance on your friends drug problem is whether or not you should buy his old junk from him. It should be HOW YOU GET HIM OFF DRUGS THATS IMPORTANT
Buying stuff from druggees is not morally wrong, whats wrong is that you are letting your friends be druggees.
letting be? his friend has no free will? he is not your child, you can talk with him about it, try to help him out but if in the end he chooses to do meth well that is his choice and it should be respected.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
XeliN United Kingdom. Nov 21 2008 15:53. Posts 2365
It is an ethical question, but it is also Guitar Hero fucking 3 with a wireless controller for $30. This supersedes any moral debate that this could provoke.
Steal City: if u want to get good at sex u need to read books. Its just like poker, u need to read
On November 21 2008 04:05 Zorglub wrote:
Floofy: Your best friends girlfriend just broke up, now do you fuck her because if not someone else will?
... and yes
OK, your mom and dad are getting divorced now do you fuck your mom because if not someone else will?
This fails so hard. Who would fuck their own mom?
My point exactly, in my mind you never fuck your best friends ex-girl either unless he is ok with it, there are certain things you just dont do even if someone else does it if you dont.
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
thewh00sel United States. Nov 21 2008 16:16. Posts 2735
Look at it this way. He's selling it to you for only 30 bucks. Can't fund much of a drug habit with 30 dollars. You're morally obligated to convince him to sell it to u for 20 so he can buy even less drugs
A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. - Ayn Rand
On November 20 2008 19:01 Floofy wrote:
why is it a retarded justification baal?
Lets make a bigger example
lets supose one of your friends breaks up with his gf and goes completly depressed and wants to sell his car that reminds him of his gf for only 3000$ (and its worth 10000). He makes the offer to you first because your his freind, but you know hes going to make the offer to other people if you refuse.
why not accept? if you dont, another person will profit of the deal and im sure your friend would prefer that one of his friends profits from it, not some random strangers...
Floofy hurry up and get a GF, I can't wait to buy your car at a discount
I have learned from poker that being at the table is not a grind, the grind is living and poker is how I pass the time
Last edit: 21/11/2008 17:13
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 21 2008 17:11. Posts 7710
On November 20 2008 20:38 Baal wrote:
why do people insist on "he would sell it to somebody else anyway" that is a fucking terrible argument you people have no morals or something?
why is that a terrible argument?
If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine?
is that even close to the same situation?
no. try again.
It is the same argument for the same type of situation, your making money by enabling something thats bad for someone else.
try again.
1.) you're not making money
2.) you're not enabling anything, your buying something that you want. if you want to address your friends drug issues then that would be an entirely different subject
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 21 2008 17:13. Posts 7710
if you guys think solving someone's drug addiction comes down to whether or not they get money to pay for the drugs, then you're both naive and fucking retarded
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
that's not the point though travis, they were just trying to debunk your "if you don't do it someone else will" argument and I agree with them
wether it's okay to buy it or not though is difficult to answer I think but if your answer is "yes i'd buy it" it certainly shouldn't be justified by "if i dont someone else will"
earth to fucktards
drug use is not bad
OP opined that drug use is blowing money
OP is a fucktard
lets go fucking mental la la la la lets go fucking mental lets go fucking mental lala la la
1
YoMeR United States. Nov 21 2008 18:00. Posts 12438
snaaaapppp calll
then i'd ask him where i can get some gooooooot dank in canada.
although a junkie prob wouldn't know. fuck
eZ Life.
1
seatown12 United States. Nov 21 2008 18:08. Posts 1193
On November 21 2008 15:07 Zorglub wrote:
My point exactly, in my mind you never fuck your best friends ex-girl either unless he is ok with it, there are certain things you just dont do even if someone else does it if you dont.
not true, the difference is you dont fuck your mom because you dont want to, unless your friend is a lame you probably want to bone his ex-batch if given the chance
Im like a motherfucking bulletproof tiger
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 21 2008 18:09. Posts 7710
On November 21 2008 16:27 Jelle wrote:
that's not the point though travis, they were just trying to debunk your "if you don't do it someone else will" argument and I agree with them
how is that not the point?
what the hell?
are you trying to say that if you don't buy it, no one else will? is that what you agree with them on? if so, that's retarded. if not, what's your point then?
wether it's okay to buy it or not though is difficult to answer I think but if your answer is "yes i'd buy it" it certainly shouldn't be justified by "if i dont someone else will"
it doesn't need to be justified by anything. someone is selling something. you want to buy it. pretty straightforward.
what they do with the money is their business. if you want to address someone's problems with drugs then you do it by actually addressing the fucking problem, not refraining from buying something from them. how is that helping them at all? I can't believe I even have to argue with anyone about this.
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 21 2008 18:11. Posts 7710
and so you know, I never even was taking the stance of "if u don't buy it someone else will" as justification for buying it.
not that I disagree with that statement at all
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
the question is "a guy you know...." not a friend so it is kind of diferent.
Ethically speaking, you can't say you don't care about what he does with the money, its like buying cloths made by slave kids on Cambodia. You can't say, man its just business cause we're seeing the ethical part of this.
What we can say is.....ok this fish is selling me really cheap crap, so hell with him its his life, hopefully no one else will result damaged.
On November 21 2008 04:05 Zorglub wrote:
Floofy: Your best friends girlfriend just broke up, now do you fuck her because if not someone else will?
and change the example for him, he has a thread of 200 pages of how to get a girl, so he won't fuck anything.
Club NL10 ballers
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 21 2008 22:13. Posts 7710
On November 21 2008 20:44 gymnast wrote:
Ethically speaking, you can't say you don't care about what he does with the money, its like buying cloths made by slave kids on Cambodia. You can't say, man its just business cause we're seeing the ethical part of this.
how do you not see the difference between your example and the one in question. what the fuck.
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
On November 21 2008 16:27 Jelle wrote:
that's not the point though travis, they were just trying to debunk your "if you don't do it someone else will" argument and I agree with them
how is that not the point?
what the hell?
are you trying to say that if you don't buy it, no one else will? is that what you agree with them on? if so, that's retarded. if not, what's your point then?
wether it's okay to buy it or not though is difficult to answer I think but if your answer is "yes i'd buy it" it certainly shouldn't be justified by "if i dont someone else will"
it doesn't need to be justified by anything. someone is selling something. you want to buy it. pretty straightforward.
what they do with the money is their business. if you want to address someone's problems with drugs then you do it by actually addressing the fucking problem, not refraining from buying something from them. how is that helping them at all? I can't believe I even have to argue with anyone about this.
So im guessing you are 100% ok with buying blood diamonds?
African rebels sell them at a very low price in order to buy AK-47, grenades etc for the slaughters they carry, you think its totally fine for anybody to buy blood diamonds?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 21 2008 22:23. Posts 7710
On November 21 2008 16:27 Jelle wrote:
that's not the point though travis, they were just trying to debunk your "if you don't do it someone else will" argument and I agree with them
how is that not the point?
what the hell?
are you trying to say that if you don't buy it, no one else will? is that what you agree with them on? if so, that's retarded. if not, what's your point then?
wether it's okay to buy it or not though is difficult to answer I think but if your answer is "yes i'd buy it" it certainly shouldn't be justified by "if i dont someone else will"
it doesn't need to be justified by anything. someone is selling something. you want to buy it. pretty straightforward.
what they do with the money is their business. if you want to address someone's problems with drugs then you do it by actually addressing the fucking problem, not refraining from buying something from them. how is that helping them at all? I can't believe I even have to argue with anyone about this.
So im guessing you are 100% ok with buying blood diamonds?
African rebels sell them at a very low price in order to buy AK-47, grenades etc for the slaughters they carry, you think its totally fine for anybody to buy blood diamonds?
I think it's totally fine to treat situations as individual and only address the factors that actually pertain to the specific situation.
If there was a vendor on the street next to me selling some of these cheap diamonds then fuck yes I would go buy some diamonds.
Some of you are just attaching extra shit to the action which actually doesn't pertain to the action whatsoever. It's beside the point. It's separate. It's something to be addressed separately.
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
1
seatown12 United States. Nov 21 2008 22:25. Posts 1193
not buying the blood diamond isn't going to stop the genocide, putting UN peacekeepers in place or something is, there is a huge difference between taking a proactive action to stop something (ie getting the friend into rehab) and taking a passive stance (ie not buying the g-hero)
not to mention blood diamonds are often mined using slave labor which puts them in the same category as the sweatshop clothes and I hope everyone can understand the distinction, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding
Im like a motherfucking bulletproof tiger
1
Steal City United States. Nov 21 2008 23:24. Posts 2537
what about being an arms dealer? aren't u guys just drawing a line at different points in the same sand....
asdf2000 United States. Nov 22 2008 00:06. Posts 7710
On November 21 2008 22:38 SemPeR wrote:
.…..is it possible to kill someone by making them live off only orange juice? Would the stomach be unable to adjust levels of acidity?
=s
yes because they will eventually die from malnutrition
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 22 2008 00:10. Posts 7710
On November 21 2008 22:24 Steal City wrote:
what about being an arms dealer? aren't u guys just drawing a line at different points in the same sand....
if u wanna follow the line of cause and effect you're gonna find out everything connects to everything else
your tax dollars goes towards plenty of bad stuff. how many people pay taxes and are against the war in iraq?
what about fast food places, let's say KFC. tons of people eat at KFC. did you know they literally torture hundreds of millions of birds a year? they don't even have to. but that is what the money is "supporting".
is it morally wrong for people to eat at kfc? is it morally wrong for people to pay taxes?
no, and no.
if you don't want to draw arbitrary lines in the sand then the only good solution is to address any specific event for exactly what it is, without adding a bunch of bullshit to it
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
1
qwerty67890 New Zealand. Nov 22 2008 01:30. Posts 14026
If you haggle him down to $20 hes going to have to buy less crack/meth and therefore is less likely to O.D.
So thats the ethical choice.
1
Minsk United States. Nov 22 2008 01:51. Posts 1558
how do you not see the difference between your example and the one in question. what the fuck.
I'm in favor of taking the deal, but against saying "no matter what else is involved, its just business"
Club NL10 ballers
1
auffenpuffer Finland. Nov 22 2008 06:28. Posts 1429
are you trying to say that if you don't buy it, no one else will? is that what you agree with them on? if so, that's retarded. if not, what's your point then?
If you dont deal heroine somebody else will... does that gives you moral immunity to dealing heroine?
is that even close to the same situation?
"A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will".
"A" can be "buying guitar hero from a drug addict" or it can be "selling heroin". What does it matter if these situations are close or not? The argument is imo invalid whatever you place as "A". Or if you think that one can use "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" as moral principle then what kind of other examples would you accept as "A" - "selling heroin" being invalid for some reason while "buying guitar hero from drug addict" is ok?
ie. In what kind of situations can we accept "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" as justification (you suggest that it is only valid in cases determined by some sort of a rule that rules "selling heroin" out)?
Perhaps you meant that "selling heroin" is not valid example because this "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will"-reasoning only applies to situations where the action placed as "A" is legal? Then would you have sex with your best friends girlfriend? If you do not do it she will probably cheat him with someone else?
"A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" does not seem to be valid when A is "having sex with your best friends GF" so there has to be some less obvious rule to follow than that "A" has to be legal?
When we hear the rule by which the cases suitable for "A is ok because if I do not do it someone else will" are determined we can start wondering if there is any point in following a moral principle only valid in so few situations and if such principle makes any sense at all (let alone being helpful).
Point is that "if I dont do it someone else probably will" does not justify anything imo.
So im guessing you are 100% ok with buying blood diamonds?
African rebels sell them at a very low price in order to buy AK-47, grenades etc for the slaughters they carry, you think its totally fine for anybody to buy blood diamonds?
This is a diffrent thing because using drugs does not directly cause a couple hundred africans to die. Yes drugs dealing - if the guy he buys from does not produce it by himself which we cannot know - many problems in third world countries and supports orginized crime but imo it goes a little far to say that you cant give anyone money unless you are sure that he wont give it to someone who might give part of it some other guy who might be connected with organized crime in some way.
what about fast food places, let's say KFC. tons of people eat at KFC. did you know they literally torture hundreds of millions of birds a year? they don't even have to. but that is what the money is "supporting".
is it morally wrong for people to eat at kfc? is it morally wrong for people to pay taxes?
Sure its morally wrong to eat at KFC.
And many people in USA refused to pay the portion of income tax used to support military during vietnam war (and some still do).
Obviously we cannot find out how everything is connected with every possible thing in the world and then choose what actions support things we want to have no part in. But when it is totally obvious that buying something will result dead africans we should restrain from buying blood diamonds imo
Last edit: 22/11/2008 06:30
1
the cleaner Germany. Nov 22 2008 06:55. Posts 3014
Don't buy it if its stolen. Bad Karma !
there are no facts only interpretations
1
EvilSky Czech Republic. Nov 22 2008 10:10. Posts 8918
As far as Im concerned if you cant change anything by avoiding to buy it it doesnt matter.
On November 21 2008 22:24 Steal City wrote:
what about being an arms dealer? aren't u guys just drawing a line at different points in the same sand....
if u wanna follow the line of cause and effect you're gonna find out everything connects to everything else
your tax dollars goes towards plenty of bad stuff. how many people pay taxes and are against the war in iraq?
what about fast food places, let's say KFC. tons of people eat at KFC. did you know they literally torture hundreds of millions of birds a year? they don't even have to. but that is what the money is "supporting".
is it morally wrong for people to eat at kfc? is it morally wrong for people to pay taxes?
no, and no.
if you don't want to draw arbitrary lines in the sand then the only good solution is to address any specific event for exactly what it is, without adding a bunch of bullshit to it
yes and yes, i dont pay taxes because our government is fucking scum.
If i believe some company tortures animals etc, yes i wouldnt eat there.
yes and yes, i dont pay taxes because our government is fucking scum.
wtf man, obv 100% of the tax income isn't going to be stolen, but that's not the question of the thread.
Now sayin "If I don't do it, someone else will" can be applied easily here, the fact is, this guy is going to sell it anyway, who buys it will have fun, who better than you to enjoy it?
yes and yes, i dont pay taxes because our government is fucking scum.
ehm wont u get urself kidnapped and killed coz of that ?
LOL
Club NL10 ballers
1
VENOM United States. Nov 22 2008 15:05. Posts 1383
Hell yea I buy it, even if I don't want it.
You can sell it on Ebay for double or triple that.
The beautiful thing about addicts is that they'll get the money one way or another (even if it involves giving a dude a strange cowboy in a back alley). You'll be doing him a favor by purchasing his GH3 for his fix, imagine what else he could be doing.
daylight keeps the shadows falling behind - Kenna / YadadaMeEn21
0
NeillyJQ United States. Nov 22 2008 15:26. Posts 8947
obv buy it, hes gonna sell it to someone else if u don't
Just remember you need to be god damn sure about their tendencies. -Artanis11 http://www.pocketfives.com/profiles/neillyaa/
On November 22 2008 11:19 SakiSaki wrote:
You are growing on me baal, if I was mexican and loved cock we could be something.
lol
seconded
1
fakeshaver United States. Nov 22 2008 20:49. Posts 1313
if u dont buy GH3 from him he could end up sucking cock in an alley for heroin or killing himself from depression. no one knows what will happen either way so u obviously choose the thing that will benefit u the most. all that lies in front of u is this good deal. its not like u went to him and said sell ur gh3, ill give u 30 dollars ulll be able to get some more heroin with that.
On November 21 2008 22:24 Steal City wrote:
what about being an arms dealer? aren't u guys just drawing a line at different points in the same sand....
if u wanna follow the line of cause and effect you're gonna find out everything connects to everything else
your tax dollars goes towards plenty of bad stuff. how many people pay taxes and are against the war in iraq?
what about fast food places, let's say KFC. tons of people eat at KFC. did you know they literally torture hundreds of millions of birds a year? they don't even have to. but that is what the money is "supporting".
is it morally wrong for people to eat at kfc? is it morally wrong for people to pay taxes?
no, and no.
if you don't want to draw arbitrary lines in the sand then the only good solution is to address any specific event for exactly what it is, without adding a bunch of bullshit to it
yes and yes, i dont pay taxes because our government is fucking scum.
If i believe some company tortures animals etc, yes i wouldnt eat there.
Your lack of values is shocking.
you know me so well
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 23 2008 12:17. Posts 1708
On November 21 2008 23:10 asdf2000 wrote:
is it morally wrong for people to eat at kfc? is it morally wrong for people to pay taxes?
no, and no.
the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right.
If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right.
If you truly think its "no, and no" you're living in a fantasy world.
if he needs those drugs so much he sells xbox for such a bargain price he must be kind of junk already. Going high once more wont change a shit in his way of living. Id buy it without any doubt.
On November 21 2008 23:10 asdf2000 wrote:
is it morally wrong for people to eat at kfc? is it morally wrong for people to pay taxes?
no, and no.
the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right.
If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right.
If you truly think its "no, and no" you're living in a fantasy world.
simply eating at KFC isnt morally wrong. most people doesnt know the company are doing such things
but i guess if someone knew he is encouraging those tortures by eating there, that could be morally wrong
james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;(
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 23 2008 13:38. Posts 1708
On November 23 2008 12:18 Floofy wrote:
simply eating at KFC isnt morally wrong. most people doesnt know the company are doing such things
but i guess if someone knew he is encouraging those tortures by eating there, that could be morally wrong
well yea. are you saying everybody should do an extensive research every time they go eat at some restaurant to see if everything is morally right about it? that doesnt make sense.
but when you KNOW they do this kind of shit i think its bad to encourage it
example: you are a doctor and every doctors recommend the plastol cuz its cheaper than other treatments.
nothing morally wrong there
but if one day you discover this treatment actually hurts the patients badly and you keep doing it to save money.... now thats morally wrong
james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;(
Last edit: 23/11/2008 14:02
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 23 2008 22:04. Posts 1708
On November 23 2008 12:58 Floofy wrote:
well yea. are you saying everybody should do an extensive research every time they go eat at some restaurant to see if everything is morally right about it? that doesnt make sense.
but when you KNOW they do this kind of shit i think its bad to encourage it
example: you are a doctor and every doctors recommend the plastol cuz its cheaper than other treatments.
nothing morally wrong there
but if one day you discover this treatment actually hurts the patients badly and you keep doing it to save money.... now thats morally wrong
You don't have to do ëxtensive research about food. If it didn't come from a battery it''ll be sure to let you know.
and the fact that they brought that meds into practice in the first place, just for money, without knowing fully what the thing is going to be doing, thats morally wrong.
On November 21 2008 22:24 Steal City wrote:
what about being an arms dealer? aren't u guys just drawing a line at different points in the same sand....
if u wanna follow the line of cause and effect you're gonna find out everything connects to everything else
your tax dollars goes towards plenty of bad stuff. how many people pay taxes and are against the war in iraq?
what about fast food places, let's say KFC. tons of people eat at KFC. did you know they literally torture hundreds of millions of birds a year? they don't even have to. but that is what the money is "supporting".
is it morally wrong for people to eat at kfc? is it morally wrong for people to pay taxes?
no, and no.
if you don't want to draw arbitrary lines in the sand then the only good solution is to address any specific event for exactly what it is, without adding a bunch of bullshit to it
yes and yes, i dont pay taxes because our government is fucking scum.
If i believe some company tortures animals etc, yes i wouldnt eat there.
Your lack of values is shocking.
you know me so well
i know you care a lot about who you are and you sculpt yourself based on your own values, that is something rare and extremely good, however i think your judgement in here is way way off, maybe you are not seeing this objectively enough.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
seatown12 United States. Nov 23 2008 22:48. Posts 1193
On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote:
the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right.
If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right.
Actually this is 100% false because morality is a social construct. You only think torturing and killing is wrong because society has determined it to be so. For instance how do you know that posting messages on an internet forum is not morally wrong? There is no ultimate moral code because there is no God, and to suggest that there is is ridiculous. Everyone must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but most just choose to accept the dictates of their society.
Im like a motherfucking bulletproof tiger
0
TheTank United States. Nov 23 2008 23:13. Posts 830
SON OF A BITCH.
So because i was leaving town as he called me to see if i was interested in his deal of guitar hero III w/ a cordless guitar for $30, we agreed on making the actual physical purchase sunday night (right now). I just got off the phone with him and he was robbed last night, they took the CD but not the controller. I was at a store earlier and they weren't selling gtIII... so this is now a -EV deal since i wouldn't pay more than about 15 more the controller.
In the back of my mind i believe he just sold it to someone else since he couldn't wait and is just making that shit up, since all druggies are lying thieving scumbags anyway.
fml.
run sooo bad.
sigh...its like they are throwing money out of a helicopter and i dont have any hands...so i just break even.
On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote:
the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right.
If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right.
Actually this is 100% false because morality is a social construct. You only think torturing and killing is wrong because society has determined it to be so. For instance how do you know that posting messages on an internet forum is not morally wrong? There is no ultimate moral code because there is no God, and to suggest that there is is ridiculous. Everyone must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but most just choose to accept the dictates of their society.
First of all god has nothing to do with anything.
secondly, morality isn't a social construct.
people who say this are either covering for their actions (there is no wrong or right, so i can do anything),
or they are trying to feel better about themselves in relation to the world (there is no wrong or right, but i'm going to be a good boy anyway).
fact is that THIS is bullshit.
There is WRONG
and there is RIGHT
every person knows if something is wrong or right but will make up a thousand excuses for themselves and the outside world to justify their shit.
If you think basic morals and values are decided by men then you are nothing but an animal.
On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote:
the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right.
If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right.
Actually this is 100% false because morality is a social construct. You only think torturing and killing is wrong because society has determined it to be so. For instance how do you know that posting messages on an internet forum is not morally wrong? There is no ultimate moral code because there is no God, and to suggest that there is is ridiculous. Everyone must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but most just choose to accept the dictates of their society.
First of all god has nothing to do with anything.
secondly, morality isn't a social construct.
people who say this are either covering for their actions (there is no wrong or right, so i can do anything),
or they are trying to feel better about themselves in relation to the world (there is no wrong or right, but i'm going to be a good boy anyway).
fact is that THIS is bullshit.
There is WRONG
and there is RIGHT
every person knows if something is wrong or right but will make up a thousand excuses for themselves and the outside world to justify their shit.
If you think basic morals and values are decided by men then you are nothing but an animal.
you are in no position to talk with that attitude because you are wrong in everything you say in this post.
In fact I'll challenge you to find one thing that all people have always agreed that it's wrong and I'd also like to challenge you to name the source of right and wrong,if it's not from god or mankind as you said
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
On November 24 2008 09:12 SpasticInk wrote:
that it's wrong to kill is pretty universal
that it happens doesnt disprove the universality of it
there are millions of examples where people think it's right to kill someone,it all depends on the circumstance.
That's if we only only look at humans killing each other,animals of different species killing for survival is nature's law O_o
On November 24 2008 09:25 SpasticInk wrote:
he didn't say it wasnt from mankind, he just said it wasn't a social construction.
On November 24 2008 06:01 brambolius wrote:
If you think basic morals and values are decided by men then you are nothing but an animal.
here he implies that humans are more than evolved cunning animals and that they didn't decide what's wrong or right.So I ask,who did?
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
you should listen to Chomsky, not advertising the craziness of foucault
I've read Chomsky and he used to be a real hero in my eyes for years.I don't see how this is relevant though.
He assumes creativity is a fundamental characteristic of human nature,I see it as a biproduct of a smart animal's natural quest for power,how is morality involved in this?
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
also there's this common misconception that people always feel guilty when they kill or that they should if they didn't etc Ever cared to think that some people have different views on morals than you do? Assuming that these guys are mistaken and that you have found the universal moral code that is absolutely correct reveals a mass shortage of critical thinking.
Ever watched little kids cut a spiders legs or put a lizard on fire in a bottle and then laugh hysterically? Is it because they are evil? No, they just feel superior to these beings and couldn't care less about them,their viewpoint is going to change through social interaction as they grow up...For the same reason you can't say an emperor is objectively "evil" because he doesn't give a shit about killing people,this guy has learned that he is a god that controls lesser beings and he acts in that manner.Let's stop thinking like the world spins around our little selves for a moment and understand that things are complicated.
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
Last edit: 24/11/2008 12:00
1
fakeshaver United States. Nov 24 2008 12:07. Posts 1313
everyone has there own moral code, its as simple as that. take dexter for example. how ur family raises u and the events in ur life determine what u see as right and wrong
well i merely pointed out that it could be whithin human nature, what's right and wrong as well.
morality has been debated, and is debated by philosophers of all time, and i doubt we will settle down this question in a forum discussion.
yes there is circumstances where people think they have the right to kill, but don't you think the world could agree that during certain circumstances it's wrong to kill, and that could be applied and understood by all of us? which makes it moraly wrong?
i also think that you have to think critically about how you see things, but it's also a danger to see everything in a relativistic way as well. there are certain aspects of human beings that is true, and why can't that be applied to morality as well?
On November 24 2008 11:15 SpasticInk wrote:
well i merely pointed out that it could be whithin human nature, what's right and wrong as well.
suggesting creativity is within human nature doesn't oppose the fact that people of different social status,cultural environment, race etc etc are constanly fighting each other,whereas the hypothesis that they have the same moral code deep within is.
yes there is circumstances where people think they have the right to kill, but don't you think the world could agree that during certain circumstances it's wrong to kill, and that could be applied and understood by all of us? which makes it moraly wrong?
there's a difference between commonly applied/accepted/enforced morals and universal morals that have been 'revealed' to humans in their true form.This is all much easier to realise if you follow the path that formed western society's morals through history and aknowledge all the different and conflicting influences through which it took shape.
i also think that you have to think critically about how you see things, but it's also a danger to see everything in a relativistic way as well. there are certain aspects of human beings that is true, and why can't that be applied to morality as well?
Because we're either looking at things in a critical way or we don't.
The fact that it would be nice for morality to be hidden in our DNA and all we have to do is look deeply doesn't make it true,on the contrary,it probably should make us more inclined to believe that it's false just because people have the tendency to unquestionably believe things that are interesting,convenient and soothing.
The danger of seeing things in a critical way is the danger of being exposed to a truth you can't handle,but perhaps the only reason one can't handle it is because he made silly assumptions about things in the first place.
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote:
the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right.
If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right.
Actually this is 100% false because morality is a social construct. You only think torturing and killing is wrong because society has determined it to be so. For instance how do you know that posting messages on an internet forum is not morally wrong? There is no ultimate moral code because there is no God, and to suggest that there is is ridiculous. Everyone must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but most just choose to accept the dictates of their society.
This is 100% right, taking the values out of society is retarded, but 99% of people do : <
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 24 2008 14:26. Posts 1708
Ok where to start.....
things like this are better discussed in person...but i'll give it a shot
"there are millions of examples where people think it's right to kill someone,it all depends on the circumstance."
"Think" and "circumstance" are the key words here.
"That's if we only only look at humans killing each other,animals of different species killing for survival is nature's law O_o"
Humans are mostly outside of "nature's law", they are a unique being when compared to all other life forms on this planet.
"In fact I'll challenge you to find one thing that all people have always agreed that it's wrong and I'd also like to challenge you to name the source of right and wrong,if it's not from god or mankind as you said"
How's about causing grief/pain for no reason but personal pleasure? Now thats just one, but probably the most fucked up one.
What is the source of "right and wrong"? Some say its your conscience (spelling lol?), and i guess thats probably the best name for it. You can shut it up, lock it up, even (try) to kill it, but that won't change the rules of "morals" or "right and wrong" or whatever you wanna call it.
"also there's this common misconception that people always feel guilty when they kill, or that they should if they didn't etc. Ever cared to think that some people have different views on morals than you do?
Assuming that these guys are mistaken and that you have found the universal moral code that is absolutely correct reveals a mass shortage of critical thinking."
Its quite obvious to me that alot of people have different VIEWS on "morals". And thats just the thing. Having a one sided view on "morality" makes anything
justifiable (spelling lol?). When in reality it is not.
Also denying a "universal moral code that is absolutely correct" reveals a mass overdose of not-so-critical thinking. You can make everything fit into your "picture"
if you just pick some pieces of the puzzle and leav other ones in the box.
"Ever watched little kids cut a spiders legs or put a lizard on fire in a bottle and then laugh hysterically? Is it because they are evil? No, they just feel superior to these beings and couldn't care less about them,their viewpoint is going to change through social interaction as they grow up...For the same reason you can't say an emperor is objectively "evil" because he doesn't give a shit about killing people,this guy has learned that he is a god that controls lesser beings and he acts in that manner.Let's stop thinking like the world spins around our little selves for a moment and understand that things are complicated."
Yes i have watched that shit and i knew it was fucking wrong. my friend loved cutting worms in half and i'm telling you he KNEW it was wrong too but he got all excited about it, a "rush" if you will.
Just an example. Was he or i evil? No off course not. We were young and we fucking around. We were kids mind you, k i d s.
An emperor doesn't have to be evil, but he's quite surely an asshole. What gives him right? The masses under his controll give him right. Becouse in the end off the day he himself is nothing but one man, probably frail or fat, and could probably be killed by any random man.
Yet people are slaving and fighting while this guy is taking it ez,
"living" "the good life". When it comes down to it this is a bullshit bubble.
"Let's stop thinking like the world spins around our little selves for a moment"
No shit, you got me on this one ^^
"and understand that things are complicated."
Yes they are, becouse our bullshitbubble has gotten pretty massive and crusty over time.
"suggesting creativity is within human nature doesn't oppose the fact that people of different social status,cultural environment, race etc etc are constantly fighting each other,whereas the hypothesis that they have the same moral code deep within is."
i'm not sure if i'm getting what ur saying here. Yes, creativity is in human nature, literally. Our bodies can simply do alot of stuff becouse of how they work. Limbs, feet, hands, fingers, ears and so on.
But the fact that these races, cultures blablabla are constantly fighting eachother does surely not kill the "hypothesis" that they have the same "moral code deep within".
"there's a difference between commonly applied/accepted/enforced morals and universal morals that have been 'revealed' to humans in their true form.This is all much easier to realise if you follow the path that formed western society's morals through history and aknowledge all the different and conflicting influences through which it took shape."
Idd it follows a path but in "morality" there is no path to follow. Its a wide open expanse. The fact that society's "morals" have been shaped only speaks against itself,
why "fix" something if it isn't broken. And this path hasn't been "revealed", it has been forcefed, to humans, getting them away from their true form.
"The fact that it would be nice for morality to be hidden in our DNA and all we have to do is look deeply doesn't make it true,on the contrary,it probably should make us more inclined to believe that it's false just because people have the tendency to unquestionably believe things that are interesting,convenient and soothing."
That fact wouldn't be convenient and soothing, it would be extremely fucked up.
And what do you mean "look deeply"? "Morality" or Right or wrong or whatever is the simplest shit ever. It only gets complicated when you start bullshitting around.
"The danger of seeing things in a critical way is the danger of being exposed to a truth you can't handle,but perhaps the only reason one can't handle it is because he made silly assumptions about things in the first place."
See if you can find anything on "objective relativism" on the web, i would love to know . I made it up and its actually pretty "critical" .
ok brambolius there are some reasons why we won't be able to reach a mutual understanding
-you believe humans are 'outside of nature's laws' when in fact nothing is outside of nature's laws and humans just happen to be more complex than the rest of earth's species
-you create an almost metaphysical feature that defines the sense of wrong or right and you call it conscience,implying that it is the same for everyone and that people who act in an 'evil' way just misinterpret it/ try to not listen to it. Whereas in fact what a person understands as right or wrong changes greatly as he grows up,according to his age AND surroundings. Even gender plays a role in it.This is very common knowledge,try a few searches on the work of Piaget (30's),Kohlberg(70's),Gilligan (80's) to see their findings/failures concerning kids and the way they evolve their ethics and how much this is influenced by the society they grow up in.
-you seem to think that morality is a very simple matter (!) too. Well that would have been great for all those guys struggling to make sense of what is moral concerning all the latest technological achievements,conflicting 'human rights' etc. Let me try to put it this way; if you don't lay back on god's wisdom to create the moral code which benefits humanity,this is the most difficult task humans have to face when/if they work collectively
-you can't empathise and escape your own view on the world. 'Causing grief/pain for no reason'? Do you think the Vikings felt that way? How about the Romans with their wars? Is the search for power reason enough?
You think that your western -influenced greatly by christianity- beliefs ever applied to these people? How can your moral sense ever condemn them when it was historically impossible for them to think the way you do(even if they wanted to,which I doubt) about things. What does the fact that a child hurts worms naturally tell you about our inclinations as a species? Does it say that we were meant to think it's bad to hurt what we consider as lesser beings for no reason? Newsflash: every mammal on the planet does it when they start exploring their strength. Why should your friend feel ashamed about cutting worms in half when he was young,what's next? Feeling guilty about musterbating?
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
Last edit: 24/11/2008 15:53
0
TheTank United States. Nov 24 2008 16:14. Posts 830
pg7 tl;dr
we are learning about this in ethics. most ancient philosophers (socrates, plato, aristotle) all believe some sort of the same thing which is: if you are born with a brain, even if you are mentally retarded, you still know the difference of what is right and what is wrong. even animals, however they are much much less intelligent. before i get flamed for telling you that animals know the difference between right and wrong, what i am talking about is an animal knows it has to eat, and it knows it has to get shelter, the basics for survival, so it knows the difference of right/wrong on a much smaller scale.
my ethics teacher showed how they mathematically proved how they were right, but i 9-table stars during his class. obv i didn't get much out of it haha.
(back then they mathematically proved it because 2+2=4 which is right and will never change, thus if they could prove it with math than it had to be right b/c math is never wrong if you have the right answer...)
sigh...its like they are throwing money out of a helicopter and i dont have any hands...so i just break even.
1
Staindred Netherlands. Nov 24 2008 16:33. Posts 15
On November 24 2008 14:42 lebowski wrote:
ok brambolius there are some reasons why we won't be able to reach a mutual understanding
-you believe humans are 'outside of nature's laws' when in fact nothing is outside of nature's laws and humans just happen to be more complex than the rest of earth's species
-you create an almost metaphysical feature that defines the sense of wrong or right and you call it conscience,implying that it is the same for everyone and that people who act in an 'evil' way just misinterpret it/ try to not listen to it. Whereas in fact what a person understands as right or wrong changes greatly as he grows up,according to his age AND surroundings. Even gender plays a role in it.This is very common knowledge,try a few searches on the work of Piaget (30's),Kohlberg(70's),Gilligan (80's) to see their findings/failures concerning kids and the way they evolve their ethics and how much this is influenced by the society they grow up in.
-you seem to think that morality is a very simple matter (!) too. Well that would have been great for all those guys struggling to make sense of what is moral concerning all the latest technological achievements,conflicting 'human rights' etc. Let me try to put it this way; if you don't lay back on god's wisdom to create the moral code which benefits humanity,this is the most difficult task humans have to face when/if they work collectively
-you can't empathise and escape your own view on the world. 'Causing grief/pain for no reason'? Do you think the Vikings felt that way? How about the Romans with their wars? Is the search for power reason enough?
You think that your western -influenced greatly by christianity- beliefs ever applied to these people? How can your moral sense ever condemn them when it was historically impossible for them to think the way you do(even if they wanted to,which I doubt) about things. What does the fact that a child hurts worms naturally tell you about our inclinations as a species? Does it say that we were meant to think it's bad to hurt what we consider as lesser beings for no reason? Newsflash: every mammal on the planet does it when they start exploring their strength. Why should your friend feel ashamed about cutting worms in half when he was young,what's next? Feeling guilty about musterbating?
ok i could write another big ass post but i'll just suffice by saying no, i don't feel guilty about masturbating, its fucking great.
What defines right and wrong? simple.. rational thinking should lead you do perfectly define right from wrong, however its hard to be rational when ur midn its all cramped in all the fake values embedded in you by society.
You would be surprised how many of your values are just burrowed from society, even your damn sexuality, if u were greek before christ, you would be happily banging hairy guys.
TedHasting, lebowski, and Baal are right from what I could read.
brambolius, you shouldn't expect anyone to read that wall of text after writing that bullshit post that says "THERE IS RIGHT AND THERE IS WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO"
the fact that floofy agrees says it all. you are wrong.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 24/11/2008 17:12
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 24 2008 17:16. Posts 7710
On November 24 2008 09:12 SpasticInk wrote:
that it's wrong to kill is pretty universal
that it happens doesnt disprove the universality of it
well, is it entirely universal? (i don't think so)
and even if it is, does it not come in different shades?
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote:
the fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make it morally right.
If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right.
Actually this is 100% false because morality is a social construct. You only think torturing and killing is wrong because society has determined it to be so. For instance how do you know that posting messages on an internet forum is not morally wrong? There is no ultimate moral code because there is no God, and to suggest that there is is ridiculous. Everyone must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, but most just choose to accept the dictates of their society.
This is 100% right, taking the values out of society is retarded, but 99% of people do : <
I dont think morals are universal either but using the morals we adopted through centuries and many are agreeing upon, is absolutely not retarded in a complicated matter like this. In fact, if every retard on earth had to completely make up their own morals, never influenced by another human, I think this world would be hell on earth for everyone.
Btw. Christians didn't invent the many basic moral codes, for example the ten commandments, many of these "rules" were in place in societies long before christianity was invented and many of them are also in use in societies not influenced by christianity.
Maybe most people adopt these morals because they make sense.
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
Did society rules made sense in ancient greek?, did they make sense when marrying a 13yo girl was standard? they dont make sense i can name dozens of current values that are just plain retarded.
Etiquette is retarded, age of concent is retarded, drug illegality is retarded, political correctness is retarded, nationalism is retarded, religiosity is retarded etc etc etc.
You have a strong point on the fact that if everbody had true fee will they would miss use it since most people are plain retards tho, but after all, society is the conjunction of these retards, and they collectively "chose" these rules, so you can say in some way our current rules are the sublimation of this retard's ideology.
On November 24 2008 17:05 Baal wrote:
Did society rules made sense in ancient greek?, did they make sense when marrying a 13yo girl was standard? they dont make sense i can name dozens of current values that are just plain retarded.
Etiquette is retarded, age of concent is retarded, drug illegality is retarded, political correctness is retarded, nationalism is retarded, religiosity is retarded etc etc etc.
You have a strong point on the fact that if everbody had true fee will they would miss use it since most people are plain retards tho, but after all, society is the conjunction of these retards, and they collectively "chose" these rules, so you can say in some way our current rules are the sublimation of this retard's ideology.
Ancient greek rules made sense to ancient greeks, if you lived in that time and adopted those rules, I dont think it is retarded in any way. Their morals were evolved for their time and their society.
You are right there are many retards, I dont think they outnumber reasonable people though, and even if they did they would still be easily manipulated by smarter guys to adopt their rules, so im not sure they had a big impact in making these rules over time, even if I dont agree on every commonly accepted moral value I think most of them makes sense, the few I dont agree in is maybe the influence these retards had
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
Last edit: 24/11/2008 18:22
1
VENOM United States. Nov 24 2008 18:24. Posts 1383
On November 21 2008 12:15 [vital]Myth wrote:
where's the option for taking advantage of his addiction and haggling down to $25?
Best Answer
daylight keeps the shadows falling behind - Kenna / YadadaMeEn21
yes for sure do it. fuck him... unless hes your boy
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 24 2008 18:43. Posts 7710
On November 24 2008 17:05 Baal wrote:
Did society rules made sense in ancient greek?, did they make sense when marrying a 13yo girl was standard? they dont make sense i can name dozens of current values that are just plain retarded.
Etiquette is retarded, age of concent is retarded, drug illegality is retarded, political correctness is retarded, nationalism is retarded, religiosity is retarded etc etc etc.
You have a strong point on the fact that if everbody had true fee will they would miss use it since most people are plain retards tho, but after all, society is the conjunction of these retards, and they collectively "chose" these rules, so you can say in some way our current rules are the sublimation of this retard's ideology.
wow a very nice post from baal
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 24 2008 18:48. Posts 7710
I think it was a dialogue between plato and socrates where they discussed that the best age to have sex with a young man is when he is just starting to grow a beard lol.
That was in our school's ancient greek textbook too
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
1
fakeshaver United States. Nov 24 2008 19:05. Posts 1313
an interesting point but I don't think it's entirely relevant when it's old guys who are doing the marrying
not to say it isn't relevant at all
But how old were they?, I mean it was correct in that time, not retarded, religion is not retarded, drug prohibition is not retarded, extremism is what is retarded.
On November 24 2008 18:05 fakeshaver wrote:
if theres grass on the chin, play ball
LOL
Club NL10 ballers
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 24 2008 20:16. Posts 7710
an interesting point but I don't think it's entirely relevant when it's old guys who are doing the marrying
not to say it isn't relevant at all
But how old were they?, I mean it was correct in that time, not retarded, religion is not retarded, drug prohibition is not retarded, extremism is what is retarded.
correct? I will assume correct means something along the lines of "morally justified", otherwise I am not sure what you mean by "correct".
anyways, just because society is structured in such a way that it promotes certain behavior does not mean that behavior is "correct".
was slavery "correct" when the U.S. economy was completely dependent upon it?
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
i think even whitout society someone could guess that fucking a 9 year old girl and then torturing it is not right
james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;(
1
asdf2000 United States. Nov 24 2008 20:20. Posts 7710
I would say that morality is based upon understanding of the effects of your actions upon other individuals.
Grindin so hard, Im smashin pussies left and right.
1
Staindred Netherlands. Nov 24 2008 20:59. Posts 15
On November 24 2008 16:10 Loco wrote:
brambolius, you shouldn't expect anyone to read that wall of text after writing that bullshit post that says "THERE IS RIGHT AND THERE IS WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO"
the fact that floofy agrees says it all. you are wrong.
Becouse i say so?
lolwut?
and you don't need to read that wall of text, tl;dr; I love spanking, it's one of the greatest things ever.
oeps
1
Staindred Netherlands. Nov 24 2008 21:00. Posts 15
On November 24 2008 15:48 Baal wrote:
there is no such thing as a concience...
What defines right and wrong? simple.. rational thinking should lead you do perfectly define right from wrong, however its hard to be rational when ur midn its all cramped in all the fake values embedded in you by society.
Its just a name.
edit: lol still on my buddies comp
ow ye and FUCK the romans
oeps
Last edit: 24/11/2008 21:05
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 24 2008 21:15. Posts 3096
id buy it but i'd also sell it back to him for the same prize should he want it back
if he were a friend id also try to get him to just be happy with smoking hash and well try to supply him with a reasonable amount of that so he could endure the cravings better
lol POKER
0
TheTank United States. Nov 24 2008 21:32. Posts 830
On November 23 2008 22:13 TheTank wrote:
SON OF A BITCH.
So because i was leaving town as he called me to see if i was interested in his deal of guitar hero III w/ a cordless guitar for $30, we agreed on making the actual physical purchase sunday night (right now). I just got off the phone with him and he was robbed last night, they took the CD but not the controller. I was at a store earlier and they weren't selling gtIII... so this is now a -EV deal since i wouldn't pay more than about 15 more the controller.
In the back of my mind i believe he just sold it to someone else since he couldn't wait and is just making that shit up, since all druggies are lying thieving scumbags anyway.
fml.
run sooo bad.
sigh...its like they are throwing money out of a helicopter and i dont have any hands...so i just break even.
On November 24 2008 17:05 Baal wrote:
Did society rules made sense in ancient greek?, did they make sense when marrying a 13yo girl was standard? they dont make sense i can name dozens of current values that are just plain retarded.
Etiquette is retarded, age of concent is retarded, drug illegality is retarded, political correctness is retarded, nationalism is retarded, religiosity is retarded etc etc etc.
You have a strong point on the fact that if everbody had true fee will they would miss use it since most people are plain retards tho, but after all, society is the conjunction of these retards, and they collectively "chose" these rules, so you can say in some way our current rules are the sublimation of this retard's ideology.
wow a very nice post from baal
i'm not sure in what way you meant that...
in a way it kind of comes out as if you meant that you're surprised because Baal doesn't make insightful posts normally... which isn't true at all.
if you just said it in a totally objective way then my bad.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 24/11/2008 21:55
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 24 2008 21:55. Posts 3096
On November 24 2008 17:05 Baal wrote:
did they make sense when marrying a 13yo girl was standard? .
what whas life expectancy in ancient greece?
well my answer to this is pretty like
split up
first of all, average age was very low compared to nowdays. but this was because of warfare and infant mortality, and the occasional plague. however, amongst people who survived beyond war-faring age, they lived long lives. most famous philosophers from ancient greece became more than 70, some lived into their 90s. (and, key point : males married girls whom were significantly younger, but males generally married only after they were done going to war. )
thus, life expectancy cannot be said to have any real bearing on the reason why in ancient greece, whether someone was post-prubescent or pre-pubescent was what defined whether they were marriable. because while the average life expectancy was significantly lower than in todays society, those who got married had a life expectancy not that much lower.
then a couple general points id like to make or whatever
morality regarding sex is, apart from incest (which genuinely is taboo, particularly parent-sibling incest, in virtually every society ever) obviously a societal construct, and almost entirely for religious reasons.
morality regarding murder has until reasonably recent times been that it is wrong to murder people within your own group. perfectly fine to murder people outside your group (hell, to continue with ancient greece: genocide was the norm, it was not only accepted by society but promoted by society. after athens had conquered the city-state Poteidaia in 429, they allowed the men, women and children to flee the city. the generals whom had allowed this to happen, were charged with "too much leniency" by the athenian court..) this is obviously also a societal construct: killing people within your own group of people is frowned upon because nobody wants to get killed; allowing this increases the chance of you getting killed. in ancient times, if you conquered a city, you wanted to get slaves out of it to maximize your revenue, hence you sold all the women and children to slavery. every man capable of wielding arms however, would be a potential threat to you in the future, hence they were all executed.
bah i kind of wanted to ramble on here but im going to stop to save us all the headache
Well Eri pretty much owned your argument gymnast, but quite frankly i think its going to be futile, reading between line when u say "drug prohibition is not retarded, bla bla bla is not retarded" i asume you are not prepared yet (or ever? hope not) to have this kind of discussion.
so back on track with the people who are beyond that....
I think true morality (good or bad) comes from rational thought, it doesnt take much brain power to realize there is nothing wrong that if ur buddy wants ur dick in his ass and both are willing to do it then it is morally fine to stick it in.
It takes a little bit of brain power to realize that the only reason currently its "wrong" for a 15yo girl/boy to fuck with a 30yo is because society dictates it to be, same reason why a 15yo boy fucking his hot teacher is a mother fucking hero for life and will not have any "emotional scars" when if the case is a young girl then she will shatter like glass.
However rational thoughts could lead to "wrong" doings because egoism can easily be rationalized, however we can see in complex animals that live in society that they do share, even when dont need to, even when it would have no repercusion in the status in their society, so i believe a the human in a pure form and not shaped by social morality has a natural tendency to be kind to others.
On November 24 2008 17:05 Baal wrote:
Did society rules made sense in ancient greek?, did they make sense when marrying a 13yo girl was standard? they dont make sense i can name dozens of current values that are just plain retarded.
Etiquette is retarded, age of concent is retarded, drug illegality is retarded, political correctness is retarded, nationalism is retarded, religiosity is retarded etc etc etc.
You have a strong point on the fact that if everbody had true fee will they would miss use it since most people are plain retards tho, but after all, society is the conjunction of these retards, and they collectively "chose" these rules, so you can say in some way our current rules are the sublimation of this retard's ideology.
wow a very nice post from baal
i'm not sure in what way you meant that...
in a way it kind of comes out as if you meant that you're surprised because Baal doesn't make insightful posts normally... which isn't true at all.
if you just said it in a totally objective way then my bad.
yes he said it in a "zomg i cant believe he posted that" cuz we usually disagree in lots of stuff im always insightful, but i spend too much energy bashing on retards
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
seatown12 United States. Nov 25 2008 06:32. Posts 1193
brambolius your insistence that killing is universally wrong either ignores the fact that some societies in history have sanctioned killing for various reasons or assumes that members of those societies knew somehow that they were doing something wrong but did it anyway. In either case your opinion is extremely ethnocentric and self-righteous.
Baal you are totally right when you say that "true 'morality' comes from rational thought." Someone who feels an aversion to killing is probably on the surface aware that they will face punishment and therefore uncomfortable. On a deeper level they may be aware that the only thing that keeps them from potentially being killed themselves is the rule of law that exists within society. This is pretty basic Lockean philosophy. I guess the best definition of "morality" in this sense is the Golden Rule concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but even this requires society to ensure reciprocity. I disagree with you when you say that "the human in a pure form and not shaped by social morality has a natural tendency to be kind to others." I think that the natural tendency of humans and all animals is self-interest. In most cases it would not benefit a person to mistreat another, but if the person needed to for instance steal because he had no other access to food he would do it in a heartbeat.
Im like a motherfucking bulletproof tiger
1
Staindred Netherlands. Nov 25 2008 06:40. Posts 15
On November 25 2008 05:32 TedHastings wrote:
brambolius your insistence that killing is universally wrong either ignores the fact that some societies in history have sanctioned killing for various reasons or assumes that members of those societies knew somehow that they were doing something wrong but did it anyway. In either case your opinion is extremely ethnocentric and self-righteous.
WHERE DO PEOPLE GET THE IDEA THAT I SAID THAT KILLING IS ALWAYS WRONG?
jezus...
oeps
1
seatown12 United States. Nov 25 2008 06:52. Posts 1193
On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote:
If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right
This is from your post which I originally responded to and although you don't explicitly say "killing is universally wrong" (someone else said that) it can be easily inferred, especially when combined with later statements of yours which indicate you do believe in universal "right" and "wrong".
Regardless, your belief in a universal morality and the implied assumption that this morality mirrors your own is, as I said, ethnocentric and self-righteous.
On November 25 2008 05:32 TedHastings wrote:
think that the natural tendency of humans and all animals is self-interest. In most cases it would not benefit a person to mistreat another, but if the person needed to for instance steal because he had no other access to food he would do it in a heartbeat.
totally aggree.In fact even the most seemingly altruistic acts originate/find motivation from self interest,every person subconsiously decides if being kind/polite/obedient is +ev in a given situation and behaves accordingly.So when a king is not kind or polite to anyone he hasn't become corrupt by power,as the concept of everyone being fundamentally kind would imply.He has just lost motivation to be kind and perhaps he will find again some room for it when people start to rebel because of heavy taxes or whatever
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
0
TheTank United States. Nov 25 2008 11:49. Posts 830
=) messed a post up, my bad. sry.
sigh...its like they are throwing money out of a helicopter and i dont have any hands...so i just break even.
Last edit: 25/11/2008 11:50
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 25 2008 13:53. Posts 1708
On November 23 2008 11:17 brambolius wrote:
If i torture and kill, but nobody cares, that doesn't make it morally right
This is from your post which I originally responded to and although you don't explicitly say "killing is universally wrong" (someone else said that) it can be easily inferred, especially when combined with later statements of yours which indicate you do believe in universal "right" and "wrong".
Regardless, your belief in a universal morality and the implied assumption that this morality mirrors your own is, as I said, ethnocentric and self-righteous.
Okey my bad, i wasn't clear there.
what i meant to say was :torture and kill for obsolutely no reason but my own personal pleasure or gain.
that should clear things up
Heat......EXTEND
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 25 2008 13:58. Posts 1708
On November 25 2008 06:24 lebowski wrote:
totally aggree.In fact even the most seemingly altruistic acts originate/find motivation from self interest,every person subconsiously decides if being kind/polite/obedient is +ev in a given situation and behaves accordingly.So when a king is not kind or polite to anyone he hasn't become corrupt by power,as the concept of everyone being fundamentally kind would imply.He has just lost motivation to be kind and perhaps he will find again some room for it when people start to rebel because of heavy taxes or whatever
You are not talking about "humans" here.
You are describing "animals", "beastmen", whatever the fuck u wanna call em.
And I think that our morality doesn't come from rational thought only. It's instinctively in us too. Let's recall the 9yo girl example. She may be a satan himself and she may deserve all kinds of tortures and being murdered, but would any of you dare to do that to her?
On November 25 2008 17:15 daysare wrote:
And I think that our morality doesn't come from rational thought only. It's instinctively in us too. Let's recall the 9yo girl example. She may be a satan himself and she may deserve all kinds of tortures and being murdered, but would any of you dare to do that to her?
....... and the dicussion drops 40iq points.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 25/11/2008 18:41
1
brambolius Netherlands. Nov 25 2008 18:56. Posts 1708
what 9 year old could deserve to be tortured and murdered?
On November 25 2008 18:02 Gologol wrote:
"However rational thoughts could lead to "wrong" doings because egoism can easily be rationalized"
Thus the need for societal laws. Humans commit many mistakes in the name of percieved rational thought.
way to quote one little part of all what i said and answer to it and not the whole post when i continued talking about that.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
disCord United States. Nov 25 2008 22:15. Posts 1005
Well ethically, if you really wanted to buy it on a clean conscious, you should make sure he buy ecstasy instead of crack or meth.
1
seatown12 United States. Nov 26 2008 17:14. Posts 1193
On November 25 2008 12:53 brambolius wrote:
what i meant to say was torture and kill for obsolutely no reason but my own personal pleasure or gain.
This definition still fits human sacrifice which was practiced in many cultures.
Earlier in the discussion you said that people who express opinions like mine are "trying to feel better about themselves in relation to the world." Based on your comments about humans in relation to animals I think that your need to believe in a higher morality is similar to many peoples' need to believe in religion in order to give their life higher meaning (after all religion at it's core is just the establishment of and justification for overriding moral principles). The idea that we are just another species is inherently unsatisfying but, unfortunately, it is also the truth.
On November 25 2008 12:53 brambolius wrote:
what i meant to say was torture and kill for obsolutely no reason but my own personal pleasure or gain.
This definition still fits human sacrifice which was practiced in many cultures.
Earlier in the discussion you said that people who express opinions like mine are "trying to feel better about themselves in relation to the world." Based on your comments about humans in relation to animals I think that your need to believe in a higher morality is similar to many peoples' need to believe in religion in order to give their life higher meaning (after all religion at it's core is just the establishment of and justification for overriding moral principles). The idea that we are just another species is inherently unsatisfying but, unfortunately, it is also the truth.
If you are saying we are just another species, you are wrong, plain and simple.
there is no need for "a higher morality", at least not in the "short" run.
allot seem to think morals = christianity = god, morals = society = culture.
i just disagree thats all
On November 25 2008 12:53 brambolius wrote:
what i meant to say was torture and kill for obsolutely no reason but my own personal pleasure or gain.
This definition still fits human sacrifice which was practiced in many cultures.
Earlier in the discussion you said that people who express opinions like mine are "trying to feel better about themselves in relation to the world." Based on your comments about humans in relation to animals I think that your need to believe in a higher morality is similar to many peoples' need to believe in religion in order to give their life higher meaning (after all religion at it's core is just the establishment of and justification for overriding moral principles). The idea that we are just another species is inherently unsatisfying but, unfortunately, it is also the truth.
If you are saying we are just another species, you are wrong, plain and simple.
there is no need for "a higher morality", at least not in the "short" run.
allot seem to think morals = christianity = god, morals = society = culture.
i just disagree thats all
What? you dont think we are just another smart animal? because thats what science tells us, so you disagree with science?
"however we can see in complex animals that live in society that they do share, even when dont need to, even when it would have no repercusion in the status in their society"
I agree with that.
"so i believe a the human in a pure form and not shaped by social morality has a natural tendency to be kind to others."
But laws protect this "pure form" from those born with psychosis. I have no problem agreeing with you if we were all born with a full deck of cards, but we aren't.
I think it's also important to note, that even sharp minds are dulled by stress and emotion. If you rely totally on your own facilities to evaluate decisions, you will make mistakes.
Contact Users: 684 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 06:37
United States. Nov 21 2008 13:15. Posts 12159
,
,
,
,