Why do liberals insist on subjective morality being laws?

[BRUTALITOPS]

Taxes, helping poor people..., funding for the arts... etc.

If you are personally against abortions but pro-choice... you should understand perfectly where I am coming from..

Though a lot of people that claim to be anti-abortion but pro-choice are just lying to make themselves feel better... so maybe they don't know where I am coming from.

[IHateGovernment]

From what I have seen libertarians are the only ones who are opposed to most subjective morality laws.

Conservatives certainly love subjective morality laws too.

[uscitizen]

I am for abortions and pro choice.
Just consider if barbara bush had gotten an abortion....

[BRUTALITOPS]

From what I have seen libertarians are the only ones who are opposed to most subjective morality laws.

Conservatives certainly love subjective morality laws too.

true but they admit it usually... liberals are oblivious to this.

[IHateGovernment]

Thats true.

[Jarod]

Conservatives are always trying to legislate morality with criminal laws.

[AnyOldIron]

All morality is subjective.

Would you not want morality legislated Grind? Would you disagree with moral legislation against murder or theft?

Why?

[uscitizen]

Umm which group is the biggest supporter of lock your ass up and sieze your property for POT laws ?

[AnyOldIron]

All legislation is legislation of subjective morality.

Even if you legislate for laissez faire markets you are dictating your morality. Which makes accusations of liberals etc as social engineers a tautology.

If you legislate, you are a social engineer.

[uscitizen]

Yep Any. ALL morality is subjective.

[IHateGovernment]

Even if you legislate for laissez faire markets you are dictating your morality. Which makes accusations of liberals etc as social engineers a tautology.


That would be the removal of legislation to create a situation in which there is a vacuum of legislation. Such a thing is amoral.

[IHateGovernment]

Law should be based on recognition of self evident rights.

[uscitizen]

Self evident rights are subjective as well.

[IHateGovernment]

Is a living person alive? If you do not interfere with them will they continue to live?

This is how natural rights work. It is basing law on observations.

Right to life can be inferred merely by the observation that an individual is alive.

[uscitizen]

I think the key to subjectivity is the self part....

[uscitizen]

who says we have a right to live ?

[IHateGovernment]

The very fact we are alive.

[uscitizen]

but so are others that think we should die and visa versa, and so are animals and plants that we consume to exist.....

[IHateGovernment]

Yes that is right USC even plants and animals have a right to live. When we kill them we violate that right.

[uscitizen]

Yep, IHG , it is all a matter of perspective and personal wants and needs on all sides.

[BRUTALITOPS]

All morality is subjective.

Would you not want morality legislated Grind? Would you disagree with moral legislation against murder or theft?

Why?

i'm on the fence.

i have yet to fully conclude if protecting individual rights is a universal and objective imperative.

But think about it... I AM on the fence...

[BRUTALITOPS]

Umm which group is the biggest supporter of lock your ass up and sieze your property for POT laws ?

not my group, try again bitch... I am probably for legalizing more drugs than YOU are.

For starters:

Mushrooms
Cocaine
Herion
Marijuana
Acid
Meth

[BRUTALITOPS]

The very fact we are alive.

Which I take is why you are against the death penalty.

Do we all have the right to be free, because we are born free?

[BRUTALITOPS]

Yep, IHG , it is all a matter of perspective and personal wants and needs on all sides.

At the very least we should strive to minimalize such subjectivity as much as possible.

Funding for the arts is NOT NECCESARY.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think pot should be legalized, although schools and employers should have the ability to drug test them and have a policy against the drug, and should have the ability to fire offenders. Marijuania can cause memory degradation for as much as a month, and obvious short-term mental degradation, and I don't believe many colleges or workplaces could survive with employers and students who can't remember anything or work. They have a right to know about it.

But I believe Heroine, LSD, shrooms, meth, cocaine and other such drugs should remain illegal. They are either dangerous or simply too strong a messing with the human mind. Anyone caught with them should be sent to rehab and fined.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

At the very least we should strive to minimalize such subjectivity as much as possible.

Funding for the arts is NOT NECCESARY.

I believe in funding for the arts...

[IHateGovernment]

Which I take is why you are against the death penalty.

Do we all have the right to be free, because we are born free?

I would say so.

[IHateGovernment]

Watermark? Whats going on with you. Supporting the war on drugs, funding the arts?

[IHateGovernment]

What about the right to liberty? If one is the owner of the self does not that right to self ownership include the right to destroy oneself.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Watermark? Whats going on with you. Supporting the war on drugs, funding the arts?

I don't support the war on drugs. I realize that we're never going to win it, I'm just settling for a more moderate solution than legalizing everything, as I think ti would be more pragmatic.

I don't think I'm a libertarian anymore. I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. I'm in the same sphere, but I don't think that government is necessarily evil, nor do I believe that limiting individual actions, in most cases, is also evil. I seek moderation in those issues.

I swung to the right in my early years, then way to the a statist form of leftism, and then to libertarianism. I think I am finally starting to reconcile the three, and am finally starting to think what I truly believe instead of going off on irrelevant tangeants based on irrelevant things.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

What about the right to liberty? If one is the owner of the self does not that right to self ownership include the right to destroy oneself.

The mind is not above manipulation... although the taking of the drugs heroine and meth may be voluntary, the addiction is not. After a while it becomes all consuming. It messes with the brain, and destroys human nature. Am I "anti-liberty" for saying that such drugs should be limited?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Maybe if we come up with something to counteract the addiction. But we certainly know now that the addiction is going to kill them, and we must rehab them in order to save them. Maybe you equate this to "Save yourself, or else", but I don't care. The human brain CAN be messed with and is not perfect, and this is something complete libertarianism fails to account for.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Which I take is why you are against the death penalty.

Do we all have the right to be free, because we are born free?

I would say so.

So then how can you believe in prisons?

If you can not take away the right to life, why should we be able to take away freedom.. even with due process?

[IHateGovernment]

Because the right to be free includes the right to protect yourself. To not be able to be free from those who wish you harm simply grants power to a different body than a government or warlord or whoever.

[IHateGovernment]

I don't support the war on drugs. I realize that we're never going to win it, I'm just settling for a more moderate solution than legalizing everything, as I think ti would be more pragmatic.

When you abandon basic principle in favor of pragmatism as the bedrock for your political views you open the door to an anything goes type of policy. As an atomic libertarian I would not suggest relegalizing every single illegal drug with one stroke of the pen. However once marijuana is legalized the feasibility of leglaizing things like mushrooms and ecstacy can be looked at and then on to cocaine and methamphetamines. Beyond that if we pursue a market solution in which major manufacturers produce these drugs instead of criminals in a basement we can tax its sale, ensure its purity and control its sale to minors.

I'm in the same sphere, but I don't think that government is necessarily evil, nor do I believe that limiting individual actions, in most cases, is also evil. I seek moderation in those issues.

It has nothing to do with evil. I personally have a high threshold of what I would consider evil. What it has to do with is the rights of the individual and self harm is one of those individuals. Otherwise you reduce people to being mere supplicants to an entity with greater ability to use force upon them to make them behave in a manner the stronger entity deems suitable.

The mind is not above manipulation... although the taking of the drugs heroine and meth may be voluntary, the addiction is not. After a while it becomes all consuming. It messes with the brain, and destroys human nature. Am I "anti-liberty" for saying that such drugs should be limited?

Many things can be addictive: alcohol, cigarettes, video games, sex. To limit the ways in which an invidual chooses to alter their mind is to place state ownership over anothers mind. These drugs alter the mind however other things also alter it such as the imparting of knowledge, traumatic experience, and daily routine. A government has no legitimate authority to mandate that certain forms of mind alteration are acceptable but that others are not.

This is a cornerstone of social conservatism in that you desire that the state have the power to regulate personal behavior in order to foster a preconceived social order. There is little difference in curtailing drug usage than curtailing sex habits or censoring ideas.

[IHateGovernment]

Maybe if we come up with something to counteract the addiction. But we certainly know now that the addiction is going to kill them, and we must rehab them in order to save them. Maybe you equate this to "Save yourself, or else", but I don't care. The human brain CAN be messed with and is not perfect, and this is something complete libertarianism fails to account for.

You are saying it is the responsibility of government to protect you from being able to make bad decisions. There is no limitation on how big and oppressive government can grow to be when you give them the charge of saving people from themselves.

Government can only do enough to save us from each other. It will never be able to save us from ourselves.

But if you want to focus on pragmatism I say this simply, it won't work. 100 years of prohibition shows this.

[Care4all]

The mind is not above manipulation... although the taking of the drugs heroine and meth may be voluntary, the addiction is not. After a while it becomes all consuming. It messes with the brain, and destroys human nature. Am I "anti-liberty" for saying that such drugs should be limited?

you are really maturing....it's been cool to watch.....in cyberspace, that is! :D

[IHateGovernment]

I take exception to that comment. Am I immature because I believe that the principles of liberty extend to the right to harm oneself?

[Cypress]

I take exception to that comment. Am I immature because I believe that the principles of liberty extend to the right to harm oneself?

Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

People who get themselves addicted to heroin, are a public burden to the rest of us - in terms of taxes, healthcare, and treatment.

Drugs should be treated as a public health threat. Not a crime.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

IHG, my position on the war on drugs would be considered ridiculously liberal by at least 95% of America. I have no idea how you can claim I am "selling out" on something I never believed in in the first place.

[Damocles]

you are really maturing....it's been cool to watch.....in cyberspace, that is! :D
Right, he must be mature, he agreed with you...

:rolleyes:

[Cancel7]

Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

People who get themselves addicted to heroin, are a public burden to the rest of us - in terms of taxes, healthcare, and treatment.

Drugs should be treated as a public health threat. Not a crime.

I think there are good points on both sides of this argument, but I wonder Cypress, don't people who are addicted to nearly anything place some burden on society? Certainly alcoholics do. What about people addicted to gambling? They destroy families, leaving broken homes with single parents and no money. Who picks up that burden?

I don't know. Heroin is pretty steep stuff, or maybe I just think so because I've never done it. But it's a pretty hard example to refute. But if you measure it against the cost to society of having to build jails to house these users, it can really make you wonder if it's worth it.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Maybe if we come up with something to counteract the addiction. But we certainly know now that the addiction is going to kill them, and we must rehab them in order to save them. Maybe you equate this to "Save yourself, or else", but I don't care. The human brain CAN be messed with and is not perfect, and this is something complete libertarianism fails to account for.

You are saying it is the responsibility of government to protect you from being able to make bad decisions. There is no limitation on how big and oppressive government can grow to be when you give them the charge of saving people from themselves.

Government can only do enough to save us from each other. It will never be able to save us from ourselves.

But if you want to focus on pragmatism I say this simply, it won't work. 100 years of prohibition shows this.

This isn't prohibition. I don't want to lock people up because they take Meth. I want to reform them. It's a public health threat, and anyway, you are using a slippery slope argument. I am trying to take a more pragmatic approach on drugs, is simply abolishing all laws on them going to help better than my plan of reform?

[Damocles]

Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

People who get themselves addicted to heroin, are a public burden to the rest of us - in terms of taxes, healthcare, and treatment.

Drugs should be treated as a public health threat. Not a crime.
While I agree principally.. It isn't because a person chooses to destroy themselves with drugs that I care to help them out. It is because they largely cannot support themselves with a job, regardless of the legality of the drugs and will victimize others directly to get their fix...

Making them illegal exacerbates this, but the presense of direct victims gives reason for the government to step in. In fact it is their job to do so...

[IHateGovernment]

Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

People who get themselves addicted to heroin, are a public burden to the rest of us - in terms of taxes, healthcare, and treatment.

Drugs should be treated as a public health threat. Not a crime.

And that is the problem with things like universal healthcare. Once you enact these things you get to tell people what to do in order to keep costs down.

Whats the difference between telling someone they can't shoot heroin to telling them they can't eat at McDonalds or smoke cigarettes.

This is the main reason I oppose state funded healthcare. They will just use it to control our behavior.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I don't support the war on drugs. I realize that we're never going to win it, I'm just settling for a more moderate solution than legalizing everything, as I think ti would be more pragmatic.

When you abandon basic principle in favor of pragmatism as the bedrock for your political views you open the door to an anything goes type of policy. As an atomic libertarian I would not suggest relegalizing every single illegal drug with one stroke of the pen. However once marijuana is legalized the feasibility of leglaizing things like mushrooms and ecstacy can be looked at and then on to cocaine and methamphetamines. Beyond that if we pursue a market solution in which major manufacturers produce these drugs instead of criminals in a basement we can tax its sale, ensure its purity and control its sale to minors.

I'm in the same sphere, but I don't think that government is necessarily evil, nor do I believe that limiting individual actions, in most cases, is also evil. I seek moderation in those issues.

It has nothing to do with evil. I personally have a high threshold of what I would consider evil. What it has to do with is the rights of the individual and self harm is one of those individuals. Otherwise you reduce people to being mere supplicants to an entity with greater ability to use force upon them to make them behave in a manner the stronger entity deems suitable.

The mind is not above manipulation... although the taking of the drugs heroine and meth may be voluntary, the addiction is not. After a while it becomes all consuming. It messes with the brain, and destroys human nature. Am I "anti-liberty" for saying that such drugs should be limited?

Many things can be addictive: alcohol, cigarettes, video games, sex. To limit the ways in which an invidual chooses to alter their mind is to place state ownership over anothers mind. These drugs alter the mind however other things also alter it such as the imparting of knowledge, traumatic experience, and daily routine. A government has no legitimate authority to mandate that certain forms of mind alteration are acceptable but that others are not.

This is a cornerstone of social conservatism in that you desire that the state have the power to regulate personal behavior in order to foster a preconceived social order. There is little difference in curtailing drug usage than curtailing sex habits or censoring ideas.

IHG, EVERYTHING is theoretically addictive. However, meth, for instance, is especially so. It's not so crazy to say that a slight video game addiction should be tolerated in society, however, to say that something that will consume you and literally kill you from the first time you take it, it is not so ridiculous to ban. 93% of the people who take meth for the first time die from it. 7% are reformed.

[IHateGovernment]

IHG, my position on the war on drugs would be considered ridiculously liberal by at least 95% of America. I have no idea how you can claim I am "selling out" on something I never believed in in the first place.

I didn't call you a sellout. Also more than 5% of the population believes in the legalization of marijuana.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There is a time at which we know a chemical will cause reactions which will not be voluntary, and no matter how much the individual desires to live the desire to take the drug will be stronger. Whenever we reach that threshold, we as a society should make the decision to prevent people. It is not "controlling" people, or oppressing them.

[Cypress]

Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

People who get themselves addicted to heroin, are a public burden to the rest of us - in terms of taxes, healthcare, and treatment.

Drugs should be treated as a public health threat. Not a crime.

And that is the problem with things like universal healthcare. Once you enact these things you get to tell people what to do in order to keep costs down.

Whats the difference between telling someone they can't shoot heroin to telling them they can't eat at McDonalds or smoke cigarettes.

This is the main reason I oppose state funded healthcare. They will just use it to control our behavior.

If you don't see a fundamental difference between heroin addiction, and McDonalds fries, we probably won't find any common ground.

Obesity and heroin should both be treated as public heath threats - not crimes.

The odds that someone is going to become drastically sick and incapacitated from heroin, tends to be a little higher than eating fries. There is no equvalency.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think there are good points on both sides of this argument, but I wonder Cypress, don't people who are addicted to nearly anything place some burden on society? Certainly alcoholics do. What about people addicted to gambling? They destroy families, leaving broken homes with single parents and no money. Who picks up that burden?

I don't know. Heroin is pretty steep stuff, or maybe I just think so because I've never done it. But it's a pretty hard example to refute. But if you measure it against the cost to society of having to build jails to house these users, it can really make you wonder if it's worth it.

Jails are absolutely USELESS to control the spread of drugs. We should focus soley on reform, punishment is not something that will work except in moderate amounts.

[Cypress]

I think there are good points on both sides of this argument, but I wonder Cypress, don't people who are addicted to nearly anything place some burden on society? Certainly alcoholics do. What about people addicted to gambling? They destroy families, leaving broken homes with single parents and no money. Who picks up that burden?

I don't know. Heroin is pretty steep stuff, or maybe I just think so because I've never done it. But it's a pretty hard example to refute. But if you measure it against the cost to society of having to build jails to house these users, it can really make you wonder if it's worth it.

Society has to make choices.

I would allow public policy to be guided by science, medical knowledge, and reason.

The odds of somebody shooting up heroin becoming ultimatley sick and incapacitated, far outweighs the odds of somebody scarfing Burger King fries and becoming ill and incapcitated.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

People who get themselves addicted to heroin, are a public burden to the rest of us - in terms of taxes, healthcare, and treatment.

Drugs should be treated as a public health threat. Not a crime.

not if you don't have taxes, forced healthcare, and forced treatment.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I am a pragmatic liberty-lover...

I believe that people having more liberty would make them happier. However, if I believe that certain things will destroy them, and ulitmately make people less happier, I will not blindly hold onto ideology. The government does have a place. I am not an anarchist.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

not if you don't have taxes, forced healthcare, and forced treatment.

A minor isn't in a position to choose his healthcare, because he/she is not mentally developed yet. A parent encouraging their children to use leaves instead of modern medicine is killing and manipulating their child, and they do not have the right to do so.

[Cypress]

not if you don't have taxes, forced healthcare, and forced treatment.

Don't like taxes? Move.

There are plenty of countries who don't have a tax system, or a functioning central government to bug you.

Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Congo.

Take your pick.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Don't like taxes? Move.

There are plenty of countries who don't have a tax system, or a functioning central government to bug you.

Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Congo.

Take your pick.

Oh, don't make that argument. Everyone hates that argument, because whoever's making that argument always chooses irrelevant countries that aren't developed and are extremely extreme.

[Damocles]

Jails are absolutely USELESS to control the spread of drugs. We should focus soley on reform, punishment is not something that will work except in moderate amounts.
Punishment will only work if the only people we punish are those who illegally distribute them. The users will be endless. If we keep up this insane "War on Drugs" all we will end up with is 50% of the population standing watch over the other 50% in prison.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Don't like taxes? Move.

There are plenty of countries who don't have a tax system, or a functioning central government to bug you.

Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Congo.

Take your pick.

how republican of you. how many times have you gotten the "like it or leave it speech cypress?"

how about YOU get the fuck out of this country and move to canada? then YOU can have your universal healthcare and you dont have to force it on the rest of us.

[Cypress]

Oh, don't make that argument. Everyone hates that argument, because whoever's making that argument always chooses irrelevant countries that aren't developed and are extremely extreme.


Name one successful country that follows the extreme libertarian model, doesn't have a viable taxes, and has a weak and irrelevant central government.

[Cypress]

how republican of you. how many times have you gotten the "like it or leave it speech cypress?"

how about YOU get the fuck out of this country and move to canada? then YOU can have your universal healthcare and you dont have to force it on the rest of us.

LOL

[BRUTALITOPS]

something funny? Why are you allowed to shape the country into your worldview but I can't?

[BRUTALITOPS]

why don't you move to canada or western europe cypress?

[uscitizen]

Which I take is why you are against the death penalty.

Do we all have the right to be free, because we are born free?

We are born free ? I don't think so , we are born into the rules of the society into which we just happen to be born. And then the indoctrination begins....

I am for legalizing all drugs to legal adults. If they want to eat strychnine they can for all I care. As long as they are old enough to know the risks and benefits.
I believe I should be able to buy any medical drug I want/need without a prescription as well.

[Cypress]

something funny? Why are you allowed to shape the country into your worldview but I can't?

I'm not worried about your worldview grind. Virtually nobody shares it. You'll find yourself very, very, very alone when you make your views known publically to other people.

Which is why, I suspect, you told me a while ago you keep your extreme political views hidden from people you interact with publically.

[Cancel7]

why don't you move to canada or western europe cypress?

No. He's going to stay here, as am I Grind, and work to force health care on you. And you will live 20 years longer because of it and still be ungrateful.

But that won't bother me, because in the end by reward is in forcing you to go to the doctor and get twice-yearly proctologist exams. :tongout:

[BRUTALITOPS]

good us, we agree.

I also think the fda should be disbanded or at the very least they can't have any binding findings.

[uscitizen]

At the very least we should strive to minimalize such subjectivity as much as possible.

Funding for the arts is NOT NECCESARY.

that is YOUR opinion, others oopinions will differ, should you impose your opinions on others ? It is a bit unfortunate that in a republic or democracy this is inevitable though.

[BRUTALITOPS]

I'm not worried about your worldview grind. Virtually nobody shares it. You'll find yourself very, very, very alone when you make your views known publically to other people.

Which is why, I suspect, you told me a while ago you keep your extreme political views hidden from people you interact with publically.

im not ashamed of sharing my beliefs if people were to ask, I just don't think it makes good dinner conversation.

I know that you are a hypocrite cypress, as long as you get your way, why would you give a fuck, right? Majority rules.

[uscitizen]

good us, we agree.

I also think the fda should be disbanded or at the very least they can't have any binding findings.

I do like the aspect of the FDA checking on the providers of our food supply though. I want to know my food is safe to eat, and I want to know that the drug I take is what it says it is and the strength is says. Other than that I agree.

[uscitizen]

an attaboy for admitting you are on the fence Grind, I was not sure you had it in ya .

[BRUTALITOPS]

i don't need universal healthcare. I am fine as it is. I don't have any student loans or finacial aid. I wont have financial problems and I wont need help with paying for medical care.

leave me alone.

[BRUTALITOPS]

ihate makes a good argument regarding individual rights and the objectivity of preserving them. I still need more proof though.

[Cypress]

im not ashamed of sharing my beliefs if people were to ask, I just don't think it makes good dinner conversation.

I know that you are a hypocrite cypress, as long as you get your way, why would you give a fuck, right? Majority rules.


Calm down. You're awfully cranky and angry for such a young kid.

Enjoy life. Society and parents are supporting you, you're in college, these are some of the best years of your life. Enjoy.

[BRUTALITOPS]

an attaboy for admitting you are on the fence Grind, I was not sure you had it in ya .

think that will shut aoi up for a bit.

[Cypress]

No. He's going to stay here, as am I Grind, and work to force health care on you. And you will live 20 years longer because of it and still be ungrateful.

But that won't bother me, because in the end by reward is in forcing you to go to the doctor and get twice-yearly proctologist exams. :tongout:

Well, that puts a damper on things.

I was gonna see if you wanted to spend a couple years living in Rome with me.


j/k

[BRUTALITOPS]

Calm down. You're awfully cranky and angry for such a young kid.

Enjoy life. Society and parents are supporting you, you're in college, these are some of the best years of your life. Enjoy.


you're a hypocrite, if you are going to make subjective beliefs law, then you have to stop bitching when christians do it.

[Damocles]

This Universal Healthcare thing seems to be one more step to deincentivize hard work. Almost everybody doesn't get health coverage in their first job, they work towards that next step in order to get that benefit. It incentivizes improvement rather than ambivalence. I don't think it would be that great a benefit to work towards ambivalence and call it improvement.. It sounds like putting lipstick on a pig. I prefer working towards lowering cost by a semi-universal single payer system so that when it becomes necessary for society to pay the cost for an individual it will not be excessive and more people could afford direct coverage....

[Cancel7]

Well, that puts a damper on things.

I was gonna see if you wanted to spend a couple years living in Rome with me.


j/k

I can't commit to more than the next few months.

I have a lot to do Cypress!

[Cypress]

I can't commit to more than the next few months.

I have a lot to do Cypress!

Okay, a villa in Tuscany.

I think that should convince you to commit to at least one year?

[BRUTALITOPS]

darla and i already have plans we are going to paris.

[Cancel7]

Okay, a villa in Tuscany.

I think that should convince you to commit to at least one year?

That's funny. I've always had a fantasy about renting a villa in Tuscany.

Hmmm. A year in Tuscany vs. staying here and forcing Grind to have proctology exams twice a year after I get my own special version of Forced Universal Health Care passed. It's a tough call.

[uscitizen]

The mind is not above manipulation... although the taking of the drugs heroine and meth may be voluntary, the addiction is not. After a while it becomes all consuming. It messes with the brain, and destroys human nature. Am I "anti-liberty" for saying that such drugs should be limited?
What about alcohol ? Per govt studies it causes at least as much harm to our society as all illegal drug use combined.

[uscitizen]

darla and i already have plans we are going to paris.

Umm Grind, Paris is full of french people.....

[Cancel7]

Cypress I forgot to tell you. On Monday the news programs were saying that Bush left DC for New York that morning. So I think that it was just the SS and whatever advance people have to go, that were at the Waldorf on Sunday. I was pretty disappointed when I found out.

But we're doing banner drops all over the Expressway starting tomorrow morning until next Thursday for Peace Declaration week, which should annoy and upset conservatives, so I am still trying. :)

[Cypress]

That's funny. I've always had a fantasy about renting a villa in Tuscany.

Hmmm. A year in Tuscany vs. staying here and forcing Grind to have proctology exams twice a year after I get my own special version of Forced Universal Health Care passed. It's a tough call.

Why would you need to be here for his proctology exams?

Bill Frist already proved in the Schiavo case you can monitor patients health remotely, by video.

Get your bags packed girl ;)

[Cancel7]

darla and i already have plans we are going to paris.


LOL

Ok, I have to go to bed.

Goodnight all.

[BRUTALITOPS]

that's ok as long as I don't have to touch them.

[Cancel7]

Why would you need to be here for his proctology exams?

Bill Frist already proved in the Schiavo case you can monitor patients health remotely, by video.

Get your bags packed girl ;)

LOL. Oh yeah, that's right! I forgot about the Frist medical video miracles. Cool.

[Cypress]

Cypress I forgot to tell you. On Monday the news programs were saying that Bush left DC for New York that morning. So I think that it was just the SS and whatever advance people have to go, that were at the Waldorf on Sunday. I was pretty disappointed when I found out.

But we're doing banner drops all over the Expressway starting tomorrow morning until next Thursday for Peace Declaration week, which should annoy and upset conservatives, so I am still trying. :)

Bummer about bush being gone. But, totally sweet on the code pink activities your lined up for! Are there conservatives in NYC?

[Cypress]

See ya later Darla! Take it easy USC if you're still on this thread.

Daily Show's on in fifteen minutes!

[Cancel7]

Bummer about bush being gone. But, totally sweet on the code pink activities your lined up for! Are there conservatives in NYC?

Very few. But we're doing it on the LIE, (Long Island Expressway) and they still exist out there.

I made six of them myself. On pink shower curtain liners. It's going to be cool.

Talk to you later Cypress, have a good night.

[uscitizen]

that's ok as long as I don't have to touch them.

yeah but they will riot and burn your car. And they just give you pretty food, not enough to eat ;)

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Name one successful country that follows the extreme libertarian model, doesn't have a viable taxes, and has a weak and irrelevant central government.

There isn't a government that has an anarchaic model of government that the Libertarians want. There isn't a government that fully follows everything a classical liberal wnats, but I doubt there's a government that follows everything you want, either.

[AnyOldIron]

That would be the removal of legislation to create a situation in which there is a vacuum of legislation. Such a thing is amoral.

If you legislate for a vacuum of legislation, you are still legislating your morality that there should be no legislation.

Libertarians are as much social engineers as any other...

[Immanuel]

Dumb question. There are very few laws, if any, that are not based upon someone's idea of morality.

Immie

[AnyOldIron]

here are very few laws, if any, that are not based upon someone's idea of morality.


I know, that's the point I am making Manny??

All legislation is based on subjective morality.

[Immanuel]

I actually didn't read the thread. I simply made the comment because I commented on Jarod's thread with the same thing.

Had to be fair, didn't I?

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

here are very few laws, if any, that are not based upon someone's idea of morality.


I know, that's the point I am making Manny??

All legislation is based on subjective morality. Naturally, since all legislation/regulation is based on moral judgments and all morality is intrinsically subjective. :)

The original question, while possibly interesting in purely academic way, isn't very productive. No human being is ever free from all social constraints. Wishing it were so is unnatural and fantastical -- it's like wishing one could live without breathing or that people would just stop trying to exercise authority over others. We are as we are.

Now, there are some distinct differences between the kinds of moral judgments different groups want to legislate. In the United States, here in the early 21st century, social conservatives seem to be obsessed with private behavior -- notably, sexual and recreational behavior -- while liberals are more interested in behavior that effects the well being of others. That's somewhat tangential to the topic, however.

Or is it? ;)

[OrnotBitwise]

Dumb question. There are very few laws, if any, that are not based upon someone's idea of morality.

Immie
See, now, I was trying to be nice about it. :D

[Damocles]

The point of this thread is that Liberals always ask that of Conservatives, they were making a point using sarcasm... Not reading the thread makes people take this one too seriously.

[TRGLDTE]

That would be the removal of legislation to create a situation in which there is a vacuum of legislation. Such a thing is amoral.

If you legislate for a vacuum of legislation, you are still legislating your morality that there should be no legislation.

Libertarians are as much social engineers as any other...

You cannot go against nature
becuase when you do
go against nature
that's part of nature too.

[OrnotBitwise]

The point of this thread is that Liberals always ask that of Conservatives, they were making a point using sarcasm... Not reading the thread makes people take this one too seriously.
Considering the fact that Grind has asked that very question a number of times in contexts that were clearly *not* intended to be humorous, I think yer bein' too generous there.

Besides, the real issue is whether certain questions have any moral significance at all. Sexual behavior isn't generally a moral issue to most liberals, for example.

[Damocles]

Considering the fact that Grind has asked that very question a number of times in contexts that were clearly *not* intended to be humorous, I think yer bein' too generous there.

Besides, the real issue is whether certain questions have any moral significance at all. Sexual behavior isn't generally a moral issue to most liberals, for example.
Nah, I actually read the thread. A few posts in Grind makes it clear he understands that the Right does this openly and regularly. I'm not being generous, just pointing out that actually reading the thread might give it a different flavor.

Either way, morality is always subjective and one group is likely to anger another by using it.

[klaatu]

Umm which group is the biggest supporter of lock your ass up and sieze your property for POT laws ?


Demcorats are just as guilty on this one.,. over the years they've had plenty oppotunity to demonstrate otherwise.

[Damocles]

Umm which group is the biggest supporter of lock your ass up and sieze your property for POT laws ?
Let's see... Four decades in power legislating and they didn't change this law? Methinks somebody needs to redefine their understanding of their party.

[BRUTALITOPS]

My thread wasn't intended to be a joke.. or sarcastic... It was a pointed question at liberals... mostly because it's an established and accepted fact in our society that conservatives do this everyday. Liberals manage to get off the hook though.

Liberals bitching about conservatives inacting legislation based on morality is hypocritcal. Furthoremore, they deserve whatever they get because they allow such subjectivity to exist within our government in the first place. Take most of that subjectivity out and you wont have to worry about the other side shafting you.

[uscitizen]

Let's see... Four decades in power legislating and they didn't change this law? Methinks somebody needs to redefine their understanding of their party.
a diverging angle there Damo ? I did not say the demoncrats do not suck on the issue either, just that the rebutlikens suck more on the issue of legalizing pot.

[Damocles]

a diverging angle there Damo ? I did not say the demoncrats do not suck on the issue either, just that the rebutlikens suck more on the issue of legalizing pot.
There is no "suck more" when the issue is that a law does not get changed. Can you understand where I am coming from here. Voting Dems in won't change this, voting Rs in won't change this. Saying "you suck more" when the exact same result is evident is just blowing hot air.

[uscitizen]

Who declared the war on drugs and bypassed the personal property siezure provision of the constitution ?

[Damocles]

Who had legislative control? Don't get all disingenuous on me now...

[uscitizen]

Not getting disenwhatever. took you a few to think of that ;)
Anyway, my origional point is the both sides suck, but the rebutlikens are more outspoken against pot use and for harsher penalties than the demoncrats.

[AnyOldIron]

i'm on the fence.

i have yet to fully conclude if protecting individual rights is a universal and objective imperative.

But think about it... I AM on the fence...

Define 'individual rights'... This is a subjective term.

Ad again, even if you arrive at a definition of ''individual rights', you are then still legislating morality. All morality is subjective.

By enforcing any individual rights or any rights at all you are legislating subjective morality.

If you oppose legislating subjective morality, then you desire a return to anarchistic natural freedoms, something social living is unconducive with...

[AnyOldIron]

Liberals bitching about conservatives inacting legislation based on morality is hypocritcal.

You are missing the point, Grind.

All groups do legislate subjective morality by the definition of legislation and morality.

The issues liberals have is not that subjective morality is dictated by conservatives, the issues are merely a debate on the extent to which what particular moral issues are legislated.

[Damocles]

Not getting disenwhatever. took you a few to think of that ;)
Anyway, my origional point is the both sides suck, but the rebutlikens are more outspoken against pot use and for harsher penalties than the demoncrats.
I'll be voting to legalize it here in CO. There have been groups that even checked with the Feds and found that their threshold to prosecute is 100 plants or the equivalent, nobody with an ounce or less will get prosecuted here any longer! Too bad I don't use anymore.

[OrnotBitwise]

Liberals bitching about conservatives inacting legislation based on morality is hypocritcal.

You are missing the point, Grind.

All groups do legislate subjective morality by the definition of legislation and morality.

The issues liberals have is not that subjective morality is dictated by conservatives, the issues are merely a debate on the extent to which what particular moral issues are legislated.
I can agree with Grind to the extent that "you're legislating morality" is now and always was a stupid slogan. What we should have said was "you're legislating idiotic, nonsensical mores that no intelligent person gives a shit about" but that lacks a certain . . . je ne se qua.

[uscitizen]

I'll be voting to legalize it here in CO. There have been groups that even checked with the Feds and found that their threshold to prosecute is 100 plants or the equivalent, nobody with an ounce or less will get prosecuted here any longer! Too bad I don't use anymore.

good for you Damo. Btw I sort of categorize you as a thinking conservative, not a blind lockstep republican. Our country needs many more like you.

[Damocles]

good for you Damo. Btw I sort of categorize you as a thinking conservative, not a blind lockstep republican. Our country needs many more like you.
I am a far more libertarian republican than most groups in my area want around. I really strongly believe in personal responsibility and rights and limitation of government on almost every level.

[uscitizen]

I am a far more libertarian republican than most groups in my area want around. I really strongly believe in personal responsibility and rights and limitation of government on almost every level.

I pretty much agree with that, although I think you would cut off more programs and such than I would. I am left leaning center with a dash of libretarian.

[Damocles]

I pretty much agree with that, although I think you would cut off more programs and such than I would. I am left leaning center with a dash of libretarian.
Most likely so. I would cut off quite a bit...

[uscitizen]

I would too, but not as much as you, and or in different areas. But we are agreed that current govt is wasteful, corrupted , and too big I think.

[BRUTALITOPS]

i'm on the fence.

i have yet to fully conclude if protecting individual rights is a universal and objective imperative.

But think about it... I AM on the fence...

Define 'individual rights'... This is a subjective term.


Which is why I'm on the fence, stupid. I clearly said I haven't concluded that individual rights are objective... I definately lean towards subjective by a wide margin.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I pretty much agree with that, although I think you would cut off more programs and such than I would. I am left leaning center with a dash of libretarian.

Oh please... don't become a big-L Libertarian. You'll kick yourself in the head a year from now. Becoming one is good instruction on why you wouldn't want to be one, however.

There's nothing wrong with protecting individual rights, and believing in free market and a free society, but the libertarian just go crazy with everything, getting pissed off at the merest taxes.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Actually, to tell you the truth US the social programs I'd support may very well be bigger than the ones you would. If I were in power, I'd certainly cut government, but I wouldn't get much further than down to 1.5-2 trillion or so, mostly from cutting out older social programs and such that didn't do much, and cutting out subsidies.

[OrnotBitwise]

Which is why I'm on the fence, stupid. I clearly said I haven't concluded that individual rights are objective... I definately lean towards subjective by a wide margin.
Fence? What fence? There is no fence to sit on.

"Rights" -- all rights -- are entirely subjective. They exist only in our collective, human reality. You can strip a human being down to the very particles that make up his or her atoms and yet you will not find one single iota of "right" anywhere in the corpse.

You have the rights that society grants you. Period. End of statement.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Yeah that's a big thing I have always had against libertarians, they are often hypocritical but then use some bizarre logic jump to suggest that life, liberty, and property are established, universal, objective rights.

[OrnotBitwise]

Yeah that's a big thing I have always had against libertarians, they are often hypocritical but then use some bizarre logic jump to suggest that life, liberty, and property are established, universal, objective rights.
They can be established and universal without being objective.

[BRUTALITOPS]

well that's not how I meant it.. I meant objective.

[BRUTALITOPS]

and I'm not sure you could come up with any universal right.

[Damocles]

What about universal wrongs? Would it be considered wrong to murder somebody in every society, including those that are not religious based?

[Cypress]

What about universal wrongs? Would it be considered wrong to murder somebody in every society, including those that are not religious based?

The ban on "murder" is only based on consensus, not as a "universal" principle.

Millions of people consider it fair game to murder Iraqi shia, Congalese tribesmen, Sudanese villagers, and European Jews.

Many would consider capital punishment to be state sanctioned murder.

[Damocles]

We can nitpick it down until it is centralized to one simple scenario and discuss then.

When would it be okay, and under what exact circumstances, to walk up behind somebody and cut their throat without their permission?

[Cypress]

We can nitpick it down until it is centralized to one simple scenario and discuss then.

When would it be okay, and under what exact circumstances, to walk up behind somebody and cut their throat without their permission?

I would say every day in Iraq, there are thousands and thousands of sectarian militia and insurgents, who would find that justified. In fact, they go beyond that and brutally torture fellow iraqis to death.

And not just in iraq. Throughout the world, there are militias and other groups who find murder and torture totally acceptable.

Like I said, there is a consesus that murder is immoral and never justified. But, its not universal.

[Damocles]

They hide behind masks and do not do it openly because they know they are doing "wrong" that is not a good example.

[Cypress]

They hide behind masks and do not do it openly because they know they are doing "wrong" that is not a good example.

The governments of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and thousands of the soldiers and security forces quite openly engaged in mass murder.

They didn't wear masks.

There are tons of examples of both governments and individuals thinking they are justified in murder.

Luckily, a broad (but not universal) consensus against murder keeps them in check (most of the time)

[Damocles]

Most in Nazi Germany also knew they were doing wrong. Thus the reason, "I was just following orders!" is not acceptable as an excuse in courts... It also is well beyond the question asked.

This too is not a good example.

[LadyT]

good us, we agree.

I also think the fda should be disbanded or at the very least they can't have any binding findings.

That's a pretty idiotic statement on many levels:

#1) What the hell would be the purpose of the FDA if their findings weren't binding?

#2) Do you really think pharmaceutical companies, food companies, biotechs, etc have your best interest at heart when they've invested hundreds and millions into a particular product?

If you believe the answer to #2 is yes, then you have a shit load growing up to do. If anything, the FDA has been too laissez-faire about a lot of things, but I won't hijack the thread.

[Cypress]

Most in Nazi Germany also knew they were doing wrong. Thus the reason, "I was just following orders!" is not acceptable as an excuse in courts... It also is well beyond the question asked.

This too is not a good example.

Most in Nazi Germany also knew they were doing wrong.

So we are in agreement that the ban on murder is not a univeral value, but a broad consensus, that keeps those who justify murder in check.

[Damocles]

No, those who cannot understand when they are doing "wrong" are insane. Attempting to say that there is no universal wrong because of the insane is also not a valid example.

[BRUTALITOPS]

We can nitpick it down until it is centralized to one simple scenario and discuss then.

When would it be okay, and under what exact circumstances, to walk up behind somebody and cut their throat without their permission?

by the laws of the universe, anytime.

[BRUTALITOPS]

That's a pretty idiotic statement on many levels:

#1) What the hell would be the purpose of the FDA if their findings weren't binding?

#2) Do you really think pharmaceutical companies, food companies, biotechs, etc have your best interest at heart when they've invested hundreds and millions into a particular product?

If you believe the answer to #2 is yes, then you have a shit load growing up to do. If anything, the FDA has been too laissez-faire about a lot of things, but I won't hijack the thread.

If you are trying to push a product it may still be in your best interest to have the FDA 'approve' you or give you a good rating. The MPAA rating isn't binding, but that doesn't keep studios from aiming to get certain ratings, they'll even cut scenes if they have to.

#2, do biotech companies want their product killing all their customers? Do they want people to not have confidence in their product? Do they want other biotech and food companies to get a leg up on them and be seen as more responsible? No.

[Damocles]

We are not the universe.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Damo, your beliefs are of no more value than someone who believes murdering is ok. It's not an objective belief.

[Damocles]

That does not make the valueless or incorrect. The question is, are they universal among us? We are exploring that idea. So far your answer is, "When speaking of 'not us' then they do not apply." The conversation has long moved past that to a specific question to which you still answer, 'not us' in an off-topic theme...

When would you think it was right to walk up behind a person and slice their throat without their permission?

I can think of several scenarios where I might consider it the right thing to do...

Once we get one answer then we can add more questions. Such as "When would it be okay if we knew the person innocent of crime, etc. Until we find a Universal ideal or we figure we can find a scenario where there is a way to prove subjectivity among us. Whether they are subjective or not does not mean that they are not universal when speaking of 'among us'.

[BRUTALITOPS]

as far as morality goes, i don't think it is right or wrong at any given time under any circumstance.

[Minister of Truth]

Yeah, imagine a culture like that in Lucas' THX-1136?

Just checkin' in from the better site to see what's up...

[Damocles]

What are you talking about?

[Damocles]

Tell us about this society in this Lucas' flick that I have never seen.

[Minister of Truth]

I'm not surprised you havn't seen it Damo. I didn't watch all of it - its kinda boring. Lucas took the film he made is school and expanded upon it to make it into his first professional work. Its got Donald Pleasense in it though.

The story centers around on a drugged up society that is very much like the one in The Giver. Of course, the title character THX-1136 stops taking his drugs and becomes an enemy of the state.

[Minister of Truth]

:wanna:

[OrnotBitwise]

The ban on "murder" is only based on consensus, not as a "universal" principle.

Millions of people consider it fair game to murder Iraqi shia, Congalese tribesmen, Sudanese villagers, and European Jews.

Many would consider capital punishment to be state sanctioned murder.Damo's on the right track, I believe. There are indeed things that are universally -- or so nearly universally as to make no nevermind -- considered wrong. The taboos are often broken, it's true, but they're still considered wrong.

There are no objectively defined rights or wrongs. One can logically derive certain strictures given a set of stipulated axioms but the axioms themselves -- the moral taboos on which all law rests -- cannot be proven or disproven.

This certainly does not invalidate morality and law, however. In the human world, a cultural artifact is every bit as real as a material object.

[Damocles]

Damo's on the right track, I believe. There are indeed things that are universally -- or so nearly universally as to make no nevermind -- considered wrong. The taboos are often broken, it's true, but they're still considered wrong.

There are no objectively defined rights or wrongs. One can logically derive certain strictures given a set of stipulated axioms but the axioms themselves -- the moral taboos on which all law rests -- cannot be proven or disproven.

This certainly does not invalidate morality and law, however. In the human world, a cultural artifact is every bit as real as a material object.
Exactly, but you took the direct tell them approach... I was going for the more annoying Socratic method of asking annoying questions...

:D

[BRUTALITOPS]

Such so-called wrongs may be viewed by a majority of people as wrong... but I don't think you can allow a majority, or even a significant group of people to give authority to so-called rights.

[Damocles]

Such so-called wrongs may be viewed by a majority of people as wrong... but I don't think you can allow a majority, or even a significant group of people to give authority to so-called rights.
Right now we are not talking about "Rights" we are working on whether or not there are Universal "morals" regardless of subjectivity. We are finding that there pretty much are... Even in Prison where often it is prudent to do so, they hide knowing it is a "wrong" that they are crossing that line.

[uscitizen]

I don't think cannibals viewed eating people as wrong, although virtually all other groups do. there is no behaviour that is universal to humans, Aside from the procreating aspects. But they don't even all use the missionary position for that and some don't even mate with the opposite sex, so that is not even universal.

[Damocles]

I don't think cannibals viewed eating people as wrong, although virtually all other groups do. there is no behaviour that is universal to humans, Aside from the procreating aspects. But they don't even all use the missionary position for that and some don't even mate with the opposite sex, so that is not even universal.
However, Cannibalism also did not fit in with the question at hand. They would attack upfront, mostly to gain the "strength" of their enemy, they did not sneak up behind and cut throats... At least not in any book I have read or in anything I have seen they didn't.

However, Hunting is entirely different than the question at hand.

[uscitizen]

I was just going after the statement about somethings humans consider abherrent behaviour to be universal. I don't consider any aspecct of human behaviour to be universal.
Well perhaps generalized greed and fear.
I consider those to be the two natural born human emotions/behaviours.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Damo to find anything to be universal you are going to have to get every single god damn human on earth to agree to a certain thing. It's not going to happen. You're wrong on this one.

[Gaffer]

By universal you mean everyone. That can not happen. There are always those that don't consider anything wrong. They might hide it and hide what they do to avoid being caught and punished, but they do not consider it wrong. They are pathelogical types. They will reason with you and agree with you and go along with you, but at the first opportunity they will do whatever it is they do that is immoral and wrong.

[Damocles]

Damo to find anything to be universal you are going to have to get every single god damn human on earth to agree to a certain thing. It's not going to happen. You're wrong on this one.
It depends entirely on "Universal", first of all we have already removed from the list the insane. Now we are looking for other exceptions. Instead of telling me how impossible it is, work with the question and answer it. What I am looking at are mores that are so close to "universal" as to have no real difference. Simple and direct cold-blooded murder is one such thing, instead of telling me how impossible it is, tell me where it was okay and we'll see if we can take it apart.

[Damocles]

By universal you mean everyone. That can not happen. There are always those that don't consider anything wrong. They might hide it and hide what they do to avoid being caught and punished, but they do not consider it wrong. They are pathelogical types. They will reason with you and agree with you and go along with you, but at the first opportunity they will do whatever it is they do that is immoral and wrong.
If they are hiding it, then they know it to be "wrong" else there would be no need to hide their impulse. Those people are acting on knowledge where they know it to be "wrong".

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Most in Nazi Germany also knew they were doing wrong. Thus the reason, "I was just following orders!" is not acceptable as an excuse in courts... It also is well beyond the question asked.

This too is not a good example.

I disagree with that...

Do you think had America been engulfed in that kind of furor a normal citizen could be expected not to fall sway to it? Social pressure is another form of twisting the mind into something else... to execute someone for something any normal person would do is just as wrong as what they did under the circumstances.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, those who cannot understand when they are doing "wrong" are insane. Attempting to say that there is no universal wrong because of the insane is also not a valid example.

That is merely if you define insanity as not believing the social consensus... or, under your definition, the consensus you happen to believe in.

[Care4all]

There is no "suck more" when the issue is that a law does not get changed. Can you understand where I am coming from here. Voting Dems in won't change this, voting Rs in won't change this. Saying "you suck more" when the exact same result is evident is just blowing hot air.

Please make sure the Conservatives like threedee, immanuel, dixie, zewaazir, klaatu, brent etc understand that there is no such thing as a party that "sucks more'' at an issue like abortion....if neither party has changed anything.

they don't believe in "your theory" about one party NOT sucking more than another party if neither party had done a thing about it...they still think the repubs hold the higher ground and THEY, the repubs, have been in charge of the law making for the last 12 years...

ahhhhhhhh, but they still PRETEND "they" hold the high ground....

[Damocles]

Please make sure the Conservatives like threedee, immanuel, dixie, zewaazir, klaatu, brent etc understand that there is no such thing as a party that "sucks more'' at an issue like abortion....if neither party has changed anything.

they don't believe in "your theory" about one party NOT sucking more than another party if neither party had done a thing about it...they still think the repubs hold the higher ground and THEY, the repubs, have been in charge of the law making for the last 12 years...

ahhhhhhhh, but they still PRETEND "they" hold the high ground....
First we'll see how the new SCOTUS Justices vote on that issue before I can judge whether the Rs have "done nothing"...

[Damocles]

I disagree with that...

Do you think had America been engulfed in that kind of furor a normal citizen could be expected not to fall sway to it? Social pressure is another form of twisting the mind into something else... to execute someone for something any normal person would do is just as wrong as what they did under the circumstances.
However, it is well outside the question at hand regardless. However, the regular citizen was not "executed" for that, it was the most heinous who were even tried. They did still know they were doing wrong though.

[Damocles]

That is merely if you define insanity as not believing the social consensus... or, under your definition, the consensus you happen to believe in.
No, not understanding society is a type of insanity. Pretending otherwise is simply pretense for a cause.

[uscitizen]

No, not understanding society is a type of insanity. Pretending otherwise is simply pretense for a cause.
so You agree that Bush is insane ? ;)

[Damocles]

*snerk* :cof1:

[BRUTALITOPS]

tell me where it was okay and we'll see if we can take it apart.

It's ALWAYS neither ok nor wrong.

Universal morality does not exist - because I am one person that disagrees with you, therefore, it's not universal.

It's simple.

QED.

[BRUTALITOPS]

You have no argument. I think the jungle bunny tribes of the amazon don't have the same morals as you damo. And neither do I. I don't think it's wrong to kill people.

[Cypress]

It depends entirely on "Universal", first of all we have already removed from the list the insane. Now we are looking for other exceptions. Instead of telling me how impossible it is, work with the question and answer it. What I am looking at are mores that are so close to "universal" as to have no real difference. Simple and direct cold-blooded murder is one such thing, instead of telling me how impossible it is, tell me where it was okay and we'll see if we can take it apart.

It depends entirely on "Universal", first of all we have already removed from the list the insane. Now we are looking for other exceptions.

Plenty of exceptions.

State-sanctioned mass murder has a long and dubious history. These are cases where murder was tolerated at best, and encourged at worst.

Until the late 19th century, a white man could easily kill as many indians as he wanted. And he'd never see the inside of a court room. He might even get paid for bringing in some scalps.

Until the mid-1960s, I don't believe there was ever a case in the american South, of a white man being convicted in a court of law, for killing a black man. That's 300 years of state-tolerated or state-sanctioned murder.

And of course, we have the Nazi German, Soviet empire, and the Balkans wars: where murder was a state policy, and enthusiastically engaged in by many citizens of the countries.

Its simply not credible to write off all those people as clinically "insane".

Like I said: there's a broad international consensus against murder - but, it is not universal. Especially when murder promotes some social or political interest

[BRUTALITOPS]

cypress for the win.

[Damocles]

Once again, you believe universality must be objective and that is incorrect. There are a few moral rules prevalent in every human society.

Not answering the question is not a profundity, it is weakness. When, among society, would it be "right" to do such a thing? As we go along we'll eliminate such items as "The man is a monster who predates children" until we have a simple code that is prevalent in every human society.

Thus stripping it of its facade to its central core... It is what we are working on right now. Cypress found some, can you?

So, with Cannabalism and "others" we find that the "morality" tends to limit itself to an "us them" mentality, as society grows ever "smaller" by communications and speedy travel we find that that includes more daily. Only isolated groups consider it an "us and them"...

However, even in those groups, if they have contact with the outside, we find that they hide and commit the acts rather than openly work their nefarious deeds thus evincing that even among those there is that fundamental inside belief that what they are doing is "wrong"...

Even terrorists wear masks to hide their identities knowing what they are doing is "wrong"..

Lets work with Cypress' Native American example. As we grew in society and learned through communication and because of quick travel we now view those Natives as "us" and believe it was wrong and is wrong to allow such action...

So, now we know the rule pretty much covers "us", So now we need to reword the question...

When would it be okay for somebody considered to be "us" to be murdered in cold blood?

[BRUTALITOPS]

When, among society, would it be "right" to do such a thing?


Who cares about what society thinks? Within society there will be individuals who do not subscribe to all of societies standards and beliefs. Society does not have the claim to morality.

To answer your question, for about the billionth time:

IT IS NEITHER OK, NOR NOT OK, AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

It is not right or wrong to kill a innocent child.
It is not right or wrong to stab somebody to death.
It is not right or wrong to burn a baby and throw it in the trash.



However, even in those groups, if they have contact with the outside, we find that they hide and commit the acts rather than openly work their nefarious deeds thus evincing that even among those there is that fundamental inside belief that what they are doing is "wrong"...


Says fucking who? They may know that society CONSIDERS their actions wrong but that doesn't mean they morally condemn themselves. They are just as likely, if not more so, acting out of self-interest to ensure that they wont be captured and sent to prison. This has nothing to do with morality damo.


Even terrorists wear masks to hide their identities knowing what they are doing is "wrong"..

Again, says who? They may not want to get caught, they may not want to endanger their families. Just because they hide their identity does not mean that they are morally condemning themselves.

There is no universal, OR objective morality. It doesn't exist, you are pulling it out of your ass. Sorry, game over. It's not real.

- Grind

[BRUTALITOPS]

When would it be okay for somebody considered to be "us" to be murdered in cold blood?


Anytime.

[BRUTALITOPS]

and when I say ok I am not saying it would be 'right', ... because that too is a moral determination. Instead, I am implying that it is not 'wrong'

[Damocles]

Who cares about what society thinks? Within society there will be individuals who do not subscribe to all of societies standards and beliefs. Society does not have the claim to morality.

To answer your question, for about the billionth time:

IT IS NEITHER OK, NOR NOT OK, AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

It is not right or wrong to kill a innocent child.
It is not right or wrong to stab somebody to death.
It is not right or wrong to burn a baby and throw it in the trash.




Says fucking who? They may know that society CONSIDERS their actions wrong but that doesn't mean they morally condemn themselves. They are just as likely, if not more so, acting out of self-interest to ensure that they wont be captured and sent to prison. This has nothing to do with morality damo.



Again, says who? They may not want to get caught, they may not want to endanger their families. Just because they hide their identity does not mean that they are morally condemning themselves.

There is no universal, OR objective morality. It doesn't exist, you are pulling it out of your ass. Sorry, game over. It's not real.

- Grind
No, but it does mean that they know what they are doing is wrong, otherwise they would not fear getting caught. They fear because they know what they are doing is wrong. That others will work to stop them is just one of the consequences of that action.

You keep repeating "Who cares what society thinks?" Well, that is where subjective morality comes from. I am working within that framework to see if we can answer a specific question and by stripping away exceptions come upon something that is as close to "Universal" as to have no real difference...

I believe that we will be able to do this.

Refusing to "play" isn't profound, it's just silly objection because I didn't play the "objectivity" game you prefer.

[Damocles]

and when I say ok I am not saying it would be 'right', ... because that too is a moral determination. Instead, I am implying that it is not 'wrong'
By what subjective standard is that "not wrong"? Here is the fundamental question that I have asked, that you simply pretend has no bearing in reality. You could keep on pretending that, but there are millions in prisons around the world for "murder"...

In every case they murdered somebody considered to be "us" in their society. As evinced by such cases as terrorists blowing up children on buses and getting rewarded, and say that same guy killing somebody in their own nation... How they are handled is answered by an us/them equation. Says who, logic and evidence before us.

[Damocles]

In all cases we must work with reality surrounding us, in that reality subjective morality is used to place laws to ensure "correct" behavior, are there universal rules among the different groups that can show that there is such a thing as universal morality, or something so close to it that no real difference exists? I believe that there is, and by asking and answering these questions we can get to that universal rule in this one case...

[uscitizen]

Even terrorists wear masks to hide their identities knowing what they are doing is "wrong"..
//

Wrong or just hiding their identity so they don't get caught and killed by those who think it is wrong ?

[BRUTALITOPS]

"No, but it does mean that they know what they are doing is wrong, otherwise they would not fear getting caught."

You're flat out incorrect. There is a difference between knowing that society CONSIDERS something wrong and actually BELIEVING an action to be WRONG.

"By what subjective standard is that "not wrong"?"

It's not wrong or right.. because there is NO real framework.

I am not refusing to play damo, there is nothing TO play. You keep talking about society, but society doesn't mean ANYTHING.

There is no objective morality. It's not real.

[Damocles]

Either way there is very little difference. They realize that there is a consequence to their action and work to alleviate that consequence, there is no real difference between why they realize it is "wrong"...

Like I already stated, that same terrorist gets a pat for killing "them" but would be beheaded for killing one of "us" among their society. They know that murder is "wrong" too. We have stripped that particular exception and are getting closer to the meat of this particular subjective moral. Where is the center kernal?

[BRUTALITOPS]

uscitizen for the win.

Me, Cypress and us... haha wow this is awesome.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Damo.

I am a person.

I honestly don't think murdering anyone, including stabbing a child's eyes out, is wrong or right.

There, you lost.

[Damocles]

"No, but it does mean that they know what they are doing is wrong, otherwise they would not fear getting caught."

You're flat out incorrect. There is a difference between knowing that society CONSIDERS something wrong and actually BELIEVING an action to be WRONG.

"By what subjective standard is that "not wrong"?"

It's not wrong or right.. because there is NO real framework.

I am not refusing to play damo, there is nothing TO play. You keep talking about society, but society doesn't mean ANYTHING.

There is no objective morality. It's not real.
Once again, you pretend that I am talking about an objective ideal and I have repeatedly informed you that I am not.

I am, however, talking about reality and subjective morality is reality whether you want it to be or not. As well there are rules that prevade every form and manner of society, we are now exploring one of those rules...

[Damocles]

Damo.

I am a person.

I honestly don't think murdering anyone, including stabbing a child's eyes out, is wrong or right.

There, you lost.
So when did you last do this and if you were going to would you carefully plan it to avoid consequences? Understanding reality doesn't take Faith...

[uscitizen]

Sio If I wear a net and gloves and such to keep from getting stung while working a hive I know that working in the hive is wrong ?

[uscitizen]

And I suppose soldiers wear body armor because they know they are doing wrong ?

[BRUTALITOPS]

Of course subjective morality is part of reality. That's why my entire thread was started asking why liberals USE subjective morality.

In fact my whole argument has essentially been that there is NO OTHER KIND of morality.

So what the hell is your point?

Do you even have one?

[Damocles]

Sio If I wear a net and gloves and such to keep from getting stung while working a hive I know that working in the hive is wrong ?
LOL. No, but one is punishment, the other nature. You do understand the difference and are only pretending to be simple, right?

[BRUTALITOPS]

And I suppose soldiers wear body armor because they know they are doing wrong ?

lol, good one uscitizen. Remind me to give you grind points, you are pulling your weight today, for once.

[Damocles]

Of course subjective morality is part of reality. That's why my entire thread was started asking why liberals USE subjective morality.

In fact my whole argument has essentially been that there is NO OTHER KIND of morality.

So what the hell is your point?

Do you even have one?
I am working on finding out if there is any such "universal" rules, I believe we are getting close to one of them...

By asking these questions and eliminating the exceptions I believe that we can arrive at something that is so close to being universal among human subjective reality as to be no different from universal...

[BRUTALITOPS]

"So when did you last do this and if you were going to would you carefully plan it to avoid consequences? Understanding reality doesn't take Faith..."

A) I don't have a motive to do this.
B) I dont' want to go to prison. That's self interest, it has nothing to do with morally condemning myself in any way.

[Damocles]

And I suppose soldiers wear body armor because they know they are doing wrong ?
Yes, they know that the "others" they are attempting to kill will consider their action wrong and take pains to alleviate the consequences of that action.

[BRUTALITOPS]

"I am working on finding out if there is any such "universal" rules, I believe we are getting close to one of them..."

No there are no universal rules. Your problem is you are looking at society rather than individuals. You will always have dissenting individuals and therefore NO value can be universal.

[uscitizen]

what about the soldier wearing body armor Damo, that is a good example. Same as the terrorist, but on the other side.

[Damocles]

"So when did you last do this and if you were going to would you carefully plan it to avoid consequences? Understanding reality doesn't take Faith..."

A) I don't have a motive to do this.
B) I dont' want to go to prison. That's self interest, it has nothing to do with morally condemning myself in any way.
No, but it is understanding. One doesn't need to feel guilt to understand "wrong", they just need to understand consequences...

The whole idea that it must be emotive rather than reactive is patently wrong.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Again damo, there is a difference between knowing that people CONSIDER an action to be wrong and actually BELIEVING the action to be wrong.

[uscitizen]

Yes, they know that the "others" they are attempting to kill will consider their action wrong and take pains to alleviate the consequences of that action.
Now you are catching on Damo ;)

[Damocles]

what about the soldier wearing body armor Damo, that is a good example. Same as the terrorist, but on the other side.
I gave the answer to that above.

[Damocles]

Again damo, there is a difference between knowing that people CONSIDER an action to be wrong and actually BELIEVING the action to be wrong.
Once again, this fundamental emotive belief that you pretend is necessary isn't. For subjective morality to have force all one needs is understanding. One understands that action to be wrong, it is unnecessary to "feel" it. That "feeling" is far more subjective... One doesn't have to feel guilt to understand that what they have done is wrong.

[uscitizen]

That guy that shot the abortion DR. in FL thought he was doing the right thing. so did the woman who bashed her kids heads in with rocks.

[uscitizen]

But of course they are "insane" because they don't agree with the same concepts of right and wrong in their society. The existance of insanity negates your argument by itself Damo. And society determines who fits their definition of insane,,,

[Damocles]

Ahhh, but they both understood that there would be consequences here...

The man went willingly to the death penalty, he was willing to pay the consequence. The woman was judged to be insane and we have already eliminated the insane.

The man also attempted to cover his action, knowing it to be wrong but was caught later.

[Damocles]

But of course they are "insane" because they don't agree with the same concepts of right and wrong in their society. The existance of insanity negates your argument by itself Damo. And society determines who fits their definition of insane,,,
It too is subjective and based on a larger entity of society. Ignoring the reality of that entity will only bring you into some serious and unexpected consequences...

:D

[Damocles]

Ahhh, but they both understood that there would be consequences here...

The man went willingly to the death penalty, he was willing to pay the consequence. The woman was judged to be insane and we have already eliminated the insane.

The man also attempted to cover his action, knowing it to be wrong but was caught later.


The man had changed the "society" to which he was a member, defining the abortion doctors to be "outsider" and thus okay to murder. Still he knew the reality and understood the reality of society and the subjective moral code he broke, he was willing to take that consequence in order to "serve" this new society he believed himself to be part of.

[uscitizen]

Ahhh, but they both understood that there would be consequences here...

The man went willingly to the death penalty, he was willing to pay the consequence. The woman was judged to be insane and we have already eliminated the insane.

The man also attempted to cover his action, knowing it to be wrong but was caught later.

Ahh but the man new there was a law against it and he would be punished if caught. Not the same thing as knowing he did something worong by his standards now is it. Apparently he thought it was right at the time and later but considered himself a martryr for god like the suicide bombers.
they think they are right and mans laws are wrong.

So is it wrong to smoke pot Damo ?

[Damocles]

Ahh but the man new there was a law against it and he would be punished if caught. Not the same thing as knowing he did something worong by his standards now is it. Apparently he thought it was right at the time and later but considered himself a martryr for god like the suicide bombers.
they think they are right and mans laws are wrong.

So is it wrong to smoke pot Damo ?
It would depend entirely on your subjective belief and the laws of your area. What consequences are you willing to pay to enjoy the substance?

It is the reason that I put "wrong" in quotations, it isn't the more emotive "I feel guilt" it is simply an understanding and anticipation of consequences that show you have that understanding.

[BRUTALITOPS]

ok damo congrats on talking about subjective wrongs. Good for fucking you... we all know prisons exist and that society judges each other subjectively. What a breakthrough....

In the end, it still means nothing.

There is a DIFFERENCE between knowing something is CONSIDERED WRONG and BELIEVING it to be WRONG.

I do not buy your lame ass argument that because society says something is wrong that it = wrong.

I don't care about poor people. I don't care if they die miserably. The vast majority in society would disagree with me. Guess what? I dont' feel wrong.. I don't know it's wrong. it's a belief. With individuals you are never going to get any universal consensus. You are wasting your time arguing something that doesn't exist. It's not there - stop trying... it's over.

[uscitizen]

There are no universal rights or wrongs. someone somewhere in mankind will disagree on every issue.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Like if I punched you in the face right now - I know that you wouldn't like it - but I would still be happy, I wouldn't regret it, and wouldn't consider it wrong, just because you didnt' like it.

[uscitizen]

All it takes is one "but" or "if".

[uscitizen]

Are you actually pissed Grind ? wow....

[BRUTALITOPS]

There are no universal rights or wrongs. someone somewhere in mankind will disagree on every issue.

exactly, which is why this argument was over before it began, Because I know I believe certin things to flat out not be wrong regardless of what society at large feels.

[BRUTALITOPS]

I am annoyed, I can't stand idiocy. He is trying to argue that we all feel regret or think something is wrong because we fear consequences.... when I am flat out saying that's not the case for me.

I know how I feel - I am the world's greatest expert on my own opinion.

It can't get any more simpler than understanding that there is a difference between knowing that something is considered wrong and believing it to be wrong.

[uscitizen]

grind, chill man. Not worth getting ticked over a chat board ....

[BRUTALITOPS]

Rule Number 1 to piss off Grind:

1) Tell Grind what He believes and how He feels

[uscitizen]

Rule Number 1 to piss off Grind:

1) Tell Grind what He believes and how He feels

Still, this is a chat board, heck I don't even let Dano piss me off on here.
?A couple of posters on FP used to get to me, but no more.
I take Enzyte now and everything is great :D

[Cypress]

Once again, you believe universality must be objective and that is incorrect. There are a few moral rules prevalent in every human society.

Not answering the question is not a profundity, it is weakness. When, among society, would it be "right" to do such a thing? As we go along we'll eliminate such items as "The man is a monster who predates children" until we have a simple code that is prevalent in every human society.

Thus stripping it of its facade to its central core... It is what we are working on right now. Cypress found some, can you?

So, with Cannabalism and "others" we find that the "morality" tends to limit itself to an "us them" mentality, as society grows ever "smaller" by communications and speedy travel we find that that includes more daily. Only isolated groups consider it an "us and them"...

However, even in those groups, if they have contact with the outside, we find that they hide and commit the acts rather than openly work their nefarious deeds thus evincing that even among those there is that fundamental inside belief that what they are doing is "wrong"...

Even terrorists wear masks to hide their identities knowing what they are doing is "wrong"..

Lets work with Cypress' Native American example. As we grew in society and learned through communication and because of quick travel we now view those Natives as "us" and believe it was wrong and is wrong to allow such action...

So, now we know the rule pretty much covers "us", So now we need to reword the question...

When would it be okay for somebody considered to be "us" to be murdered in cold blood?

You're moving the goal posts backwards. "Us" is a subjective term. Not quantifiable.

You've moved the goal posts, and left us with an ever less objective proposition. What is "us".

Iraqis of the same nationality are killing each other. Russians in Stalin's NKVD certainly took great pleasure murdering other russians.

And USC is right: the whole wearing of masks by iraqi militia thing, is because they don't want to be caught. Not because they feel some inner guilt about murdering.

[Damocles]

I am annoyed, I can't stand idiocy. He is trying to argue that we all feel regret or think something is wrong because we fear consequences.... when I am flat out saying that's not the case for me.

I know how I feel - I am the world's greatest expert on my own opinion.

It can't get any more simpler than understanding that there is a difference between knowing that something is considered wrong and believing it to be wrong.
This is exactly NOT what I was arguing. I was arguing that the emotion of regret is unnecessary in understanding a "wrong"... I specifically stated so several times along the way.

[Damocles]

You're moving the goal posts backwards. "Us" is a subjective term. Not quantifiable.

You've moved the goal posts, and left us with an ever less objective proposition. What is "us".

Iraqis of the same nationality are killing each other. Russians in Stalin's NKVD certainly took great pleasure murdering other russians.

And USC is right: the whole wearing of masks by iraqi militia thing, is because they don't want to be caught. Not because they feel some inner guilt about murdering.
This is the actual central question to my proposition, what is "us". In the case of the Abortion Doctor he had redefined his "us".

[BRUTALITOPS]

Damo:

Us is ME and me alone.

Everyone else is them.

[BRUTALITOPS]

"This is exactly NOT what I was arguing. I was arguing that the emotion of regret is unnecessary in understanding a "wrong"... I specifically stated so several times along the way.

Hence why I also said I know something isn't wrong. Even without feeling bad, I still don't think it's wrong. I think society is wrong. I'm right.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, not understanding society is a type of insanity. Pretending otherwise is simply pretense for a cause.

What if your society believes murdering a particularly individual is right? Is it therefore right, or do you believe that your particular society has the best and only answers?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

However, it is well outside the question at hand regardless. However, the regular citizen was not "executed" for that, it was the most heinous who were even tried. They did still know they were doing wrong though.

There have been studies done on this...

Subjects were told by men in white suits to keep on sending shocks to someone. After a while they started screaming. Then the screaming stopped and they were told to up the voltage more. Of course, no one was dying. But they clearly knew what they were doing, and they simply followed order. I believe about 90% of the respondents or so went along with this... in America.

Of course, we're libertarians. We hate authority, and we have our own moral compass. It's a different way than the average citizen thinks, so I doubt many libertarian would go along. But to the average citizen, social pressure can be far more persuasive than torture, or being involuntarilly drugged, or anything else we usually consider in court cases that usually causes the case to be thrown out.

[Damocles]

"This is exactly NOT what I was arguing. I was arguing that the emotion of regret is unnecessary in understanding a "wrong"... I specifically stated so several times along the way.

Hence why I also said I know something isn't wrong. Even without feeling bad, I still don't think it's wrong. I think society is wrong. I'm right.
Which depends entirely on which group you place yourself in, "us" is vital to such, even with understanding...

It's all good Grind, there is no objective morality, the Universe doesn't care what strictures society places on an individual.

[Damocles]

What if your society believes murdering a particularly individual is right? Is it therefore right, or do you believe that your particular society has the best and only answers?
That particular individual would be "outside" or "other"...

[FUCK THE POLICE]

But of course they are "insane" because they don't agree with the same concepts of right and wrong in their society. The existance of insanity negates your argument by itself Damo. And society determines who fits their definition of insane,,,

Insanity is a tool society uses to give a reason for the people who do things that aren't within the society's bounds. Morality doesn't exist. A "universal" society doesn't exist. People come together, do things, and refer to themselves as society, but they are all seperate individuals with their own moral compasses. Some people, sometimes a majority, sometimes all, most of the time a minority, decide a set moral compass and enforce it on everyone else.

It all sounds so messy whenever you describe it like that though, eh?

[Damocles]

Society is an entity of itself, thus we have a nice science to study it called sociology. Anyway, when those groups of humans get together and make their rules there are rules that are universal to all human societies. One, and only one of them, has been what I have been discussing in this thread. The idea that one would feel "guilt" or "remorse" is idealism. Understanding is the only line that must be drawn. Do you understand the rules, not would you feel bad if you broke them, is the question...

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Criminal activity in itself may be considered insanity. However, we don't like to think about this. We like to think of the noble police officer and the evil swine criminals. But what made them commit the crime? How is the crime wrong? Were they being greedy? Why were they being selfish? What lead them to this path? How can we fix this?

Punishment is a blunt solution to this, shoving individuals out of the way that society finds undesirable. It's a stopgap measure. I mean, what else do we have? Brainwashing and designing people to act exactly as society wants from childbirth?

Still, some people take some kind of irrational pride in the act of punishment, and believe themselves great for it, for destroying a life in order to avenge the hurt of another. I don't. I put up with it.

[Damocles]

They made a decision to face the consequences of their decision. Their action to hide what they have done makes it clear they understood that their action was "wrong". Whether they feel remorse or not makes not one iota of difference.

[uscitizen]

Killing is wrong ? well EXCEPT in self defense, or protecting your country, or for revenge, or if accidental, if they are a bad man, caught with your wife, told to by a superior officer, It killing one will save more lives, etc....

[uscitizen]

They made a decision to face the consequences of their decision. Their action to hide what they have done makes it clear they understood that their action was "wrong". Whether they feel remorse or not makes not one iota of difference.
Not quite damo, I don't smoke pot, but only because I like to keep my property, job and not go to jail, but I don't think anything is wrong with smoking pot.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Society is an entity of itself, thus we have a nice science to study it called sociology. Anyway, when those groups of humans get together and make their rules there are rules that are universal to all human societies. One, and only one of them, has been what I have been discussing in this thread. The idea that one would feel "guilt" or "remorse" is idealism. Understanding is the only line that must be drawn. Do you understand the rules, not would you feel bad if you broke them, is the question...

And therefore you fall to the answer...

Everyone is selfish, and everyone wants what's best for them, no matter what. Those who act in a way that society likes, like giving away charity, are doing this so that they will feel good, so that society will like them, not because they're some kind of followers of this inperceivable universal morality.

And how is society an entity? It is not. Society is vague, and it exists, but it is not in itself an entity. I consider myself associated with society sometimes, but I do not consider myself the society. I am acquiesced into it, I do it only because to not do so would be bad for me.

[uscitizen]

Society is an entity of itself, thus we have a nice science to study it called sociology. Anyway, when those groups of humans get together and make their rules there are rules that are universal to all human societies. One, and only one of them, has been what I have been discussing in this thread. The idea that one would feel "guilt" or "remorse" is idealism. Understanding is the only line that must be drawn. Do you understand the rules, not would you feel bad if you broke them, is the question...
Me thinks you have diverged a bit here Damo.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Ahhh, but they both understood that there would be consequences here...

The man went willingly to the death penalty, he was willing to pay the consequence. The woman was judged to be insane and we have already eliminated the insane.

The man also attempted to cover his action, knowing it to be wrong but was caught later.

He "went willingly into the death penalty"? He willingly killed the woman, but he would have avoided his own death if he could have. You never punish yourself willingly, to say that you do is a justification that is logically fallacious, and often used fallaciously by people in authority.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Those who don't follow society act selfishly. We consider them evil, and we consider our selfishness better than theirs. All societies do. And so we try to punish them, and they believe WE are insane, sometimes. Some societies very close together can consider another society somewhat insane... and many insane people believe society to be insane, as technically if a person is completely alone and broken with society they can become their own society. The only thing the big "societies" have going for them is a large number of people follow them.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Exactly uscitizen... damo still fails to grasp this simple concept.

[Damocles]

Not quite damo, I don't smoke pot, but only because I like to keep my property, job and not go to jail, but I don't think anything is wrong with smoking pot.
Once again the "feeling" is of no actual consequence... "Feeling" it is wrong is not what I am talking about and is the reason that I put "wrong" in quotations throughout. The emotive response is unnecessary to the equation.

[Damocles]

Exactly uscitizen... damo still fails to grasp this simple concept.
Rubbish, I have stated why it doesn't matter what you "feel" when speaking of this particular sociological study.

[BRUTALITOPS]

I have stated that even discounting that I can still feel that something isn't wrong.

You have gone no where with any of this damo.

[Damocles]

Once again, what you "feel" doesn't matter. I speak to the societal level you attempt to reduce that to an individual. The individual works within that societal level. They ask the question, "Who is "us"?" each individual with a different answer. That will give them what they will "feel" guilt about, but they also understand the larger societal picture, the less emotive "wrong" that I have stated that I was speaking of.

Pretending I haven't spoken directly to this insistence of "feeling" of yours is just pretense. I even informed you I was speaking of societies and how these same rules are prevalent throughout human societies...

I have talked about how the individual works within that framework and explained why what they "feel" is wrong is different from what they know to be "wrong". How they choose to face or to chance facing the consequences as they understand the cost.

[BRUTALITOPS]

I have said about 1 billion times that even i disagree with the unemotive wrong.

[Damocles]

Regardless of disagreement, it is reality. It is understanding, not agreement, that matters when speaking of the individual within society. There are many laws individuals may not agree with, but still know that they would face consequences if they are caught. They work to hide their action to keep from getting caught because of that understanding. It doesn't matter what they "feel".

My original question was within that framework. Are there "morals" that we find within all societies? I believe that I put forward one specific one found within all societies as a norm. That it is basically "universal" at that particular level.

[Damocles]

Anyway, Grind. It has been fun for me, and I think frustrating for you so I'll give you your thread back...

:D

:hij:

[Cypress]

This is exactly NOT what I was arguing. I was arguing that the emotion of regret is unnecessary in understanding a "wrong"... I specifically stated so several times along the way.

Pol Pot - Cambodia

Murdering three million of his fellow cambodians was state policy, and considered entirely justfiable.

I don't think you can claim all the khmer rouge were clinically "insane".

[BRUTALITOPS]

I still think you made no sense.

[Damocles]

Pol Pot - Cambodia

Murdering three million of his fellow cambodians was state policy, and considered entirely justfiable.

I don't think you can claim all the khmer rouge were clinically "insane".

I do believe that they had a different perspective on "us" and "them" though. I also made a promise to Grind to return his thread that I "jacked" to talk on sociology and subjective universality... so I think if we want to talk more on this subject we'll need to create a new thread.

[uscitizen]

I'm bailin on this thread ;)

[evince]

That's a pretty idiotic statement on many levels:

#1) What the hell would be the purpose of the FDA if their findings weren't binding?

#2) Do you really think pharmaceutical companies, food companies, biotechs, etc have your best interest at heart when they've invested hundreds and millions into a particular product?

If you believe the answer to #2 is yes, then you have a shit load growing up to do. If anything, the FDA has been too laissez-faire about a lot of things, but I won't hijack the thread.


man do I miss lady T too