General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Page 4: Bad People

or track by Email or RSS


identifier

Avatar for identifier

2141 posts
Joined 07/2008

The statement is absolute(no exceptions) that good/evil right/wrong are based on a moral code that is subjective. How can something be right or wrong when a moral code has only the standard that a person says these things go in this column and these go in the other. I can appreciate that this is an emotional subject, my intention was to hopefully get some to see that to think people make decisions based on morals is flawed, as that person or persons has to first subscribe to what you consider moral.



aka not being a psychopath?

Also, you realise that you're making a value judgement about value judgments being impossible, right?

Posted almost 3 years ago

tttttt

Avatar for tttttt

96 posts
Joined 06/2011

it is not a value judgement.

that's like saying that belief in a god and the absence of belief in a god are ultimately equivalent positions.

you're saying that a lack of faith is a kind of faith, which is just a silly way to try and put him on the same shaky ground that you are on.

Posted almost 3 years ago

identifier

Avatar for identifier

2141 posts
Joined 07/2008

it is not a value judgement.

that's like saying that belief in a god and the absence of belief in a god are ultimately equivalent positions.

you're saying that a lack of faith is a kind of faith, which is just a silly way to try and put him on the same shaky ground that you are on.



No, this is fundamentally different. Can't chat now though, playing poker.

Posted almost 3 years ago

identifier

Avatar for identifier

2141 posts
Joined 07/2008

Basically, if you refer to something that is not independent of social context then you're making a value judgement on some level. So things like "the sky is blue" is not a value judgement", but "the sky should be blue" is. Morals are inseparable from social context therefore whenever you talk about them, you're making value judgements. They are also intangible. Meaning just by discussing them they become real and have values.

Posted almost 3 years ago

nawhead

Avatar for nawhead

2485 posts
Joined 10/2009

i believe there are some absolute morals. killing another human being is universally accepted as bad. rape is bad, killing babies is bad, etc.. i agree that if someone can't see that killing another human is bad, or just considers it a value judgment, that person is by definition a psychopath.

the point that's being confused is that we can do bad things without being bad ourselves if it's for a noble cause.

if one disagrees with that previous statement, then they will just adhere to morals without consideration to necessary exceptions to the rule. if someone sent me back in time and said "kill Hitler to save millions of other human lives," that would be a necessary exception and a great and noble cause. but if i believe in absolute morality without exception, i would refuse the task and probably be considered by the rest of humanity as a selfish pinhead.

Posted almost 3 years ago

StueysKid

Avatar for StueysKid

1018 posts
Joined 11/2009

I'm pretty sure that every person alive today is descended from at least one act of "rape" somewhere in our collective lineage. Would you go back and remove this evil as well?
I obviously agree with your stance; I just also can take a step back and find it somewhat odd that rape had an evolutionary (reproductive if you will) advantage and therefore helped bring about the human race (along with every other species)
Perhaps the big difference between us and every other species on the planet is that we're able to empathize and when we act opposite to this, it just seems wrong. Other animals don't give two bits if the female is consenting and damned sure not to care if the being for dinner is consenting or not.

Posted almost 3 years ago

SCS

Avatar for SCS

6524 posts
Joined 06/2008

There is no absolute morals. Acts are only good or evil relative to any alternative choices.

Posted almost 3 years ago

nawhead

Avatar for nawhead

2485 posts
Joined 10/2009

Perhaps the big difference between us and every other species on the planet is that we're able to empathize and when we act opposite to this, it just seems wrong. Other animals don't give two bits if the female is consenting and damned sure not to care if the being for dinner is consenting or not.


all mammals have a limbic system, thus they feel emotion. emotion is just a value machine. getting chased by predator = bad. eating = good. sex = good. getting raped? i'm not sure how to classify this actually...

so all mammals do have a very primitive moral code even in the absence of language.

but frogs are soulless demons and can't be trusted.

Posted almost 3 years ago

nawhead

Avatar for nawhead

2485 posts
Joined 10/2009

There is no absolute morals. Acts are only good or evil relative to any alternative choices.


i think there's a better way to see it.

good = anything "life furthering, life preserving, species preserving" (Nietzsche's phrasing).

evil = that which limits or prevents good

Posted almost 3 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

now the theory of the myth of Al Qaeda has a logical consistency. amazing documentary. thanks for the link.

The Power of Nightmares Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave



trying to qualify a belief system through the occupations of its members is just an appeal to authority. such a tactic does not prove anything other than that normal, intelligent people who hold skilled jobs can also simultaneously hold onto fantastic beliefs.

and there may be 1500 engineers and architects who believe it was a controlled demolition, but then if we don't count all the other engineers and architects all over the world who don't believe it was a controlled demolition, we're not getting the whole picture. if you believe in things based on numbers (which isn't good either), "everybody else" is a lot more than 1500. so that's a lot more proof for the conventional explanation.



I agree entirely with your sentiments. However, "everybody else" has not even taken a glancing look at WTC7. "Everybody else" in this regard have not even heard of WTC7 whatsoever. As far as I am concerned, all you need is eyes and a brain. Just watch it. Fires? Pretend, for the sake of discussion, this building was in London, England, it had small fires over 4 floors, yet symmetrically collapsed through itself at free fall speed because of those fires. All other events of that day aside. Is this not doublethink?

if it isn't doublethink, what better modern day example of doublethink would you suggest?

Posted almost 3 years ago

nawhead

Avatar for nawhead

2485 posts
Joined 10/2009

I agree entirely with your sentiments. However, "everybody else" has not even taken a glancing look at WTC7. "Everybody else" in this regard have not even heard of WTC7 whatsoever.


that's a fair enough argument.

As far as I am concerned, all you need is eyes and a brain. Just watch it. Fires?


according to http://debunking911.com/pull.htm , fire commanders on the scene were pulling out their men from WTC7 because they feared the building was going to fall due to extensive damage and fires. if they're lying, now we need to put these people (who lost comrades fighting these fires remember) in the conspiracy.

Posted almost 3 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

For clarification I am not trying to qualify a belief system. That's a straw man. A belief system is entirely different from verifiable facts, laws of physics, two plus two must equal four and so on.

Unless you think science itself is simply a belief system? If so then we are thus talking about semantics. Which is another discussion entirely.

However, I don't think that is what you are trying to say nor where you intended the discussion to go.

To quote an article much better put than I am capable of expressing:

"The official theory maintains that the World World Trade Center Towers collapsed due to fire after being hit by jet airplanes piloted by terrorists. This theory is supported to a certain extent by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. A massive problem with this theory is that it violates the laws of physics, namely Law of Conservation of Momentum and Law of Conservation of Energy.....

...The laws of physics have never been violated. So if you propose a theory that requires violating the laws of physics you have a huge problem. Scientists would at best completely ignore such a theory but usually proponents of such theories are ridiculed mercilessly, unless of course it seems, if you are the US government. In science one observation that disagrees with the predictions of a theory means the theory is wrong. The official story regarding the 9/11 WTC tower collapses clearly violates two fundamental laws of physics. The theory that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition on the other hand does not violate the laws of physics. So which theory does science dictate we reject?"


Further, also imagine that you actually were open to the notion that perhaps the official version of events were untrue. What amount of evidence would have to be presented to you for you to begin to think that perhaps all was not as it first initially seemed? Laws of physics aside, of course.

Posted almost 3 years ago

chuck651

Avatar for chuck651

1342 posts
Joined 11/2010

Nothing is good/evil or right/wrong, these are simply labels made up by us.



Right but we can assume there is at least a general moral standard of good

Posted almost 3 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

Right but we can assume there is at least a general moral standard of good



Only in particular cultures. It isn't uniform. Good is subjective. Hell, look at our own culture. Even within our own society we have vegans, gays, wags, HFLCers Wink and all sorts in-between. They all have a definition of 'good' which is entirely different from the next subculture's definition. Some cultures burn the dead and then drink the ashes of the body (Yanomami). Some cultures drink poison (alcohol) for pleasure. Some cultures cut their own genitals at birth (Judaism). 'Good' is subjective.

Posted almost 3 years ago

nawhead

Avatar for nawhead

2485 posts
Joined 10/2009

the WTC7 debunking page is wrong then? is it your assertion that there was no extensive damage to WTC7 and that these fire commanders pulled out their men from safe buildings?

For clarification I am not trying to qualify a belief system.


i should have just said "belief" then. you're right, it's not an important point.

A massive problem with this theory is that it violates the laws of physics, namely Law of Conservation of Momentum and Law of Conservation of Energy.....


that's debatable. http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm

The theory that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition on the other hand does not violate the laws of physics. So which theory does science dictate we reject?"


the above question is a non sequitur. the alternative theory can adhere to physics but if it has false assumptions in other parts, it will still be false. and again, it's debatable whether the conventional theory defies physics.

Further, also imagine that you actually were open to the notion that perhaps the official version of events were untrue. What amount of evidence would have to be presented to you for you to begin to think that perhaps all was not as it first initially seemed?


this is like a "how much evidence would you need to believe in God?" question. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. and begging the question ("if theory X defies physics, theory Y must be true.") and citing the Laws of Physics is not extraordinary evidence. but to think about the alternative theory seriously, i have to first find a problem with the conventional theory.

Posted almost 3 years ago




HomePoker ForumsGeneral Poker Discussion → Bad People