Death with Dignity

[Elenai]

Soldiers regret having to kill, we honour them because of their sacrifice, not their bloodied hands.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Morality is the sum of the results of our actions. Right and Wrong, and for a hypothetical scenario of right and wrong: Was my decision to kill this puppy in cold blood, skin it alive, and eat its eyeballs in front of sheltered six year old school children right or wrong?

The effect of my decision and the morality behind it are clearly seen in the after effects, there is no opinion in clearly seen, and palpable in the cause and effects that follow.

I may have perceived such an action to be good, to shock them into the reality of a cruel world, but it was not good, fore it was 'wrong'.

Oh ffs, I give up with you Elenai, you cannot even see that the theory of the good is an intrinsic part of morality (well, most moralities).

Why has murder been seen wrong since the beginning of time Griffen?

Murder is illegal or wrongful killing; it has in itself a moral judgement contained. That's like asking why doing bad stuff has always been seen as wrong...

Killing, on the otherhand, most definately has not been seen as wrong since the beginning of time. Or even now.

But suicide is wrong.Why would you throw away something precious like that.You get only once to live.

The summation of a few years of hopelessness and physical and emotional distress, coupled with the loss of your mind, which leaves your family with memories of you as a crippled, worthless being is not something you can really describe as precious, but ghastly.

 

[Elenai]

Oh ffs, I give up with you Elenai, you cannot even see that the theory of the good is an intrinsic part of morality (well, most moralities).

Elaborate on that perhaps...or have I stumped you?

Good to me is the natural order, and evil is the perversion of that order.

In good and evil, a balanced scale does not exist in my philosophy.

 

[PurplePoot]

Elenai, your argument is based on assumptions of what is right and wrong, which is where it falls apart.

Gilles, BC is famous for flip-flopping from far left to far right and back.

 

[Gilles]

Murder is illegal or wrongful killing; it has in itself a moral judgement contained. That's like asking why doing bad stuff has always been seen as wrong...

Killing, on the otherhand, most definately has not been seen as wrong since the beginning of time. Or even now.

What's a moral judgment?

Edit: Poot, what does that have to do with our discussion?

Elenai, are you talking about evil being the absence of good?

 

[Elenai]

Elenai, your argument is based on assumptions of what is right and wrong, which is where it falls apart.

Opinions are riddled with assumptions are they not?

He assumes that there is no absolute truth in morality, I assume there is. He assumes (as far as I can gather) that good and evil are in the eye of the beholder, and I assume that good and evil are not, but that good is the natural state of things, and that evil is the destruction of that state of being. That the effects of that destruction are able to be measured, and therefore are subject to the possibility of being 'absolute'.

 

[Gilles]

Elenai, your argument is based on assumptions of what is right and wrong, which is where it falls apart.

If I'm not mistaken, Elenai is trying to point out that there are some "wrong" things that we feel bad for doing, our conscience tells us its wrong. Our conscience abides by natural law.

 

[Elenai]

If I'm not mistaken, Elenai is trying to point out that there are some "wrong" things that we feel bad for doing, our conscience tells us its wrong. Our conscience abides by natural law.

yes, that and the effects of psychological disturbance.

 

[Hakeem]

Me being able to smash your head in without fear of reciprocation is certainly more oppressive than most sets of laws.

It would be foolish of you to think that reciprocation comes as a result of laws. Do you protect yourself because the law says self defense is allowed? Do people execute the murderer because the law says to do so?

Your idea of right and wrong though is putting predefined constraints on right and wrong - which means you are in fact NOT discussing a moral system, as you're already putting in place the moral system before you start the discussion, which totally misses the point.

The moral system, and by extension its ability to be universal, depends entirely on what X is. Each definition has a distinct set of morality. I think that most moral codes can use my incomplete definitions of the terms "right" and "wrong" with varying definitions of what X is. My morality has a certain idea of what X is. Would you care to share what yours is so we can test your assertion?

It would seem to me, Elenai's definition of X would be "the natural order."

Not that much.But What kind of dog?What kind of chocoloate?Where is he going to die?When is he going to die?What kind of death?We are all going to die.Does his death related to the fact he ate chocolate?

While those may be relevant to my statement, they are not required for you to understand the idea I conveyed. There is a core idea I conveyed, but some of the details of the idea are not given. I do not care to give those details with my initial idea.

You see when you says something it's always ambiguous.

Ambiguity is not a property of every statement, but most statements are very lacking in detail.

ultimately words are ambiguous.

They are not. Most of them have a specific definition. If you do not understand the definition, more research may be conducted. Once you understand a word, it can be used in other definitions.

As long as the suicidal guy don't hurt others.

I agree. If there is someone who nobody cared about, who would hurt nobody and nothing by suicide, then it would be permissible.

There is not a single person alive who qualifies. Because there are people like me who care.

Elenai, your argument is based on assumptions of what is right and wrong, which is where it falls apart.

You are assuming they are strictly assumptions and not conclusions. His examples follow what I perceive to be his set of morality.

 

[PurplePoot]

Edit: Poot, what does that have to do with our discussion?

You said laws were based on truth. If the province keeps flip-flopping, how can no matter what they do be based on truth in that sense?

You are assuming they are strictly assumptions and not conclusions. His examples follow what I perceive to be his set of morality.

They are assumptions as far as the evidence he has provided to us goes.

 

[Elenai]

The majority of my evidence would be laughed at anyway, since I inevitably put alot of my Christian thought into my theoretical processing.

Then again...I also base alot of my conclusions on how mankind acts, which is in general...like selfish barbarians.

It is also likewise, difficult to 'link' sources that are gathered as bits and pieces throughout one's lifetime and forged into a world view.

 

[Gilles]

You said laws were based on truth. If the province keeps flip-flopping, how can no matter what they do be based on truth in that sense?

Peoples opinion on what is truth changes, but truth itself does not.

 

[PurplePoot]

Then how can laws be based on the truth?

 

[Elenai]

The basic laws are usually based on truth. The stuff that deals with human rights mostly.

Tax laws and laws of that sort probably are not.

That is just my opinion I suppose.

Elenai, are you talking about evil being the absence of good?

No, Evil is the perversion of good.

"Good" is like a painting, and "Evil" is like taking that painting and smearing stuff all over it.

The Absence of Good would be simply the absence of primarily being, since I believe that all things in the 'natural order' as God intended are "good". However nature and man are now perverted and subject to evil.

This is my theological perspective atleast.

From a secular perspective:

"Homeostatic existence or positive elation of that status = good/right"

"Removal of that stasis or the destruction of it for a malicious reason = evil/wrong."

Removal of that stasis usually being done through actions that invade a person's individual rights. Actions that thus "do wrong" are then "wrong".

And there is where I see the absolute truth, since you can measure the disturbance, and study it, and therefore make a reasonable theory, or law from that study.

 

[Gilles]

Then how can laws be based on the truth?

How are they not?

Also many basic laws almost never waiver. Murder is self-evident, and a truth.

 

[PurplePoot]

Those are recent laws. Humans have been around for ages. Hell, your religion (or similar ones, like Judaism) have been around for thousands of years, and the laws are hardly a fraction that old.

And they do waver. Look at, say, the middle east, east Asia, or Africa.

 

[Gilles]

Those are recent laws. Humans have been around for ages. Hell, your religion (or similar ones, like Judaism) have been around for thousands of years, and the laws are hardly a fraction that old.

And they do waver. Look at, say, the middle east, east Asia, or Africa.

Murder has been considered wrong as far back as human history can go. Rarely does anyone argue against it.

And even if you think murder is not wrong, you still are agreeing to truth. We are/were discussing if truth exists or not, not natural law.

 

[PurplePoot]

But what murder is has changed so much that saying that is like saying that the religious bans of pork and multi-fabric clothes still make sense.

 

[Hakeem]

There is good reason to not eat pork.

 

[shadow3]

Soldiers regret having to kill, we honour them because of their sacrifice, not their bloodied hands.

That is not always the case.

 

[Captain Griffen]

It would be foolish of you to think that reciprocation comes as a result of laws. Do you protect yourself because the law says self defense is allowed? Do people execute the murderer because the law says to do so?

So...open season on child rape, since they cannot defend themselves?

The rest of what you've said in that post has no relevence to the debate on whether morality has any real basis besides assertions from opinions.

The basic laws are usually based on truth. The stuff that deals with human rights mostly.

No, based on what the majority believe to be 'truth'. And the majority are stupid.

How are they not?

Also many basic laws almost never waiver. Murder is self-evident, and a truth.

Murder == unlawful deliberate killing. OF COURSE murder is always illegal - otherwise it'd just be killing. It includes a legal judgement!

Killing meanwhile is a requirement in most countries at some time or other.

And even if you think murder is not wrong, you still are agreeing to truth. We are/were discussing if truth exists or not, not natural law.

It is not the case that murder is wrong. It is not the case that murder is right. Right is not merely any case where it is not that case that it is wrong.

You missed a key part of logic. Really, let me put this bluntly - I am far, far superior than you all at logic. Seriously. I can promise you that. So stop arguing straight logic with me, you'll not win.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

You missed a key part of logic. Really, let me put this bluntly - I am far, far superior than you all at logic. Seriously. I can promise you that. So stop arguing straight logic with me, you'll not win.

Seems to me you missed a key part of logic here. I don't see how you can say you're superior at arguing logically with almost no reason.

No, based on what the majority believe to be 'truth'. And the majority are stupid.

Again, this sentence has little logic and go straight to conclusions here with no reason.


In anycase, as I've said before in the past (distant past) I believe that morality is based on assertion. Without any idea, influence or experience, one would not realise what is right or wrong, as both are little more than just words. As people move on however, their experiences from life, influence from people or objects etc., that shapes ones morality.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Seems to me you missed a key part of logic here. I don't see how you can say you're superior at arguing logically with almost no reason.

Well, feel free to argue with my Oxford tutors...

Again, this sentence has little logic and go straight to conclusions here with no reason.

The reasoning is self-evident to anyone with a brain. People base their decisions on what they believe. They cannot base it on truth unless they believe what is truth, but that is incidental and not itself a causal link.

 

[Gilles]

You missed a key part of logic. Really, let me put this bluntly - I am far, far superior than you all at logic. Seriously. I can promise you that. So stop arguing straight logic with me, you'll not win.

Jeez, I never said I was. I already stated that I am learning as we go here, it's not like I'm some "brilliant oxford man".

You never answered (I don't think you did) on whether or not you agreed with this statement:

The only truth is that there is no truth.

 

[Elenai]

But what murder is has changed so much that saying that is like saying that the religious bans of pork and multi-fabric clothes still make sense.

Not really...Murder has always been 'killing without legal justification', in some form or another. The way murder is dealt with has changed, not murder itself.

No, based on what the majority believe to be 'truth'. And the majority are stupid.

The Majority decided slavery should be banned worldwide, and that all men have equal rights, rights that should not be invaded, and the freedom to do as they wish (within reason).

You call them stupid?

It is not the case that murder is wrong. It is not the case that murder is right. Right is not merely any case where it is not that case that it is wrong.

Forgive me...but could you clear up this sentence?

You missed a key part of logic. Really, let me put this bluntly - I am far, far superior than you all at logic. Seriously. I can promise you that. So stop arguing straight logic with me, you'll not win.

Let me put it bluntly to you my friend: Do not be so arrogant as to think that your mind and your skills in reasoning are superior to that of another, when you yourself have not provided any less of a measure of blatant assumptions without backup evidence of your own.

Do not assume that you are superior when you have not engaged him in all areas of the academic fields. Logic is a strange bed-mistress, and often times you find she is cheating on you, when you think she is on your side.

Likewise do not assume that you will always win, simply because you perceive your worldview to be more relevant.

This is a debate of Truth, Right, and Wrong, debate that, and not your perceived superiority, which for some reason seems to stem from your status of being an Oxford student. As seen here:

Well, feel free to argue with my Oxford tutors...

You are not your professors, you are not your tutors. Your logic and theirs have flaws, and are no more superior than ours, especially in a world were you believe in 'non-absolutes' and 'relevance in opinion'.

Samuraid taught me this: "Confidence, doesn't mean you are winning."

The reasoning is self-evident to anyone with a brain. People base their decisions on what they believe. They cannot base it on truth unless they believe what is truth, but that is incidental and not itself a causal link.

Substantiate.

 

[PurplePoot]

So basically you're saying murder is wrong because murder is defined as wrong.

That doesn't further your argument; in fact, it still discredits it, because it shows you've been arguing with purely circular logic on this point all along.

 

[Elenai]

So basically you're saying murder is wrong because murder is defined as wrong.

That doesn't further your argument; in fact, it still discredits it, because it shows you've been arguing with purely circular logic on this point all along.

Murder is wrong because it invades the rights of an individual that you do not have authority over.

"You are stealing the life of an individual"

You do not own that life, and therefore have no rights to it, either as property, or as guardianship.

You therefore are not allowed to take it, since you do not own it.

To take it without justification by an authority above the people is to steal it, and thus commit a wrong, since it is inherently 'not right' to take what is not yours, and not-right is 'wrong'.

It is not circular logic, it is a simple series of truths that lead to a conclusion.

I don't own you > I don't have rights over you > I cannot infringe upon your right to live > If I do I am putting you out of your homeostatic existence, or removing you from existence entirely > I have invaded your right to exist > I have commited "wrong" against you > therefore "murder" is wrong, since it invades your right to exist, rights that I have no ownership over, and no authority to take.

There is no circular logic to this, unless a straight line is a circle in your world.

 

[Callahan]

Murder is wrong because it invades the rights of an individual that you do not have authority over.

"You are stealing the life of an individual"

You do not own that life, and therefore have no rights to it, either as property, or as guardianship.

You therefore are not allowed to take it, since you do not own it.

To take it without justification by an authority above the people is to steal it, and thus commit a wrong, since it is inherently 'not right' to take what is not yours, and not-right is 'wrong'.

It is not circular logic, it is a simple series of truths that lead to a conclusion.

I don't own you > I don't have rights over you > I cannot infringe upon your right to live > If I do I am putting you out of your homeostatic existence, or removing you from existence entirely > I have invaded your right to exist > I have commited "wrong" against you > therefore "murder" is wrong, since it invades your right to exist, rights that I have no ownership over, and no authority to take.

There is no circular logic to this, unless a straight line is a circle in your world.

Yeah human moral and common sense brought up those rules to allow us to live in society and civilization.
But technically you own whatever you take.
Technically there's no right to exist, you just exist.
If you don't exist yet you can't have the right to exist.
If you don't exist anymore you can't have the right to exist.
In fact you must exist to have the right to exist so technically it's pointless.

 

[Elenai]

You can't own an individual, since the individual owns himself. Can you prove otherwise?

The right to exist is given upon the start of life. You exist therefore you are, I think therefore I am, I exist therefore I am me, you exist and that is the most precious gift of living, and why should anyone have the right to take it? Why then is the right to exist not existent, if living isn't a privilege but your own right to be, once you are "begotten"?

It isn't human morality, or common sense that says slavery is wrong, it is the very principle of being your own person that says so.

Every man from the beginning of time has shaped his own destiny, made his own decisions, and dealt with the consequences thus. And this is because he is accountable to himself, he owns himself, and he will always own himself, even if he suffers the lash, and the title to his life is bought by another equal human being.

 

[PurplePoot]

Murder is wrong because it invades the rights of an individual that you do not have authority over.

"You are stealing the life of an individual"

You do not own that life, and therefore have no rights to it, either as property, or as guardianship.

You therefore are not allowed to take it, since you do not own it.

These are assumptions, not truths.

See: slaves

See: capital punishment

See: burning at the stake/stoning/etc

And so on.

 

[Callahan]

You can't own an individual, since the individual owns himself. Can you prove otherwise?

Tell that to Kim-Jong-il.

It isn't human morality, or common sense that says slavery is wrong, it is the very principle of being your own person that says so.

So why slavery as been abolished only since the XIXth century?
Slavery hasn't been abolished with a sudden revelation that you're your own person saying to themselves 'Hey it's worng!'.Slaves and some philosophers had to fight for it to make things change.
And since the XIVth century to XIXth century slavery were common and accepted by majority of population who'd benefit from it.

Every man from the beginning of time has shaped his own destiny, made his own decisions, and dealt with the consequences thus. And this is because he is accountable to himself, he owns himself, and he will always own himself, even if he suffers the lash, and the title to his life is bought by another equal human being.

From the begining of time there were no man.
Concept of destiny is dogmatic.
You can't always own yourself since one day you'll cease to exist.
I think you awefuly blindly believe in the moral that has been taught to you as something absolute,immutable,total and universal.
Remember that if you're free today is because many men had fought and died for it.It's not something aquired since the begining of time.
And it's not the case in many countrys.

 

[Captain Griffen]

The only truth is that there is no truth.

In morality? I'd agree.

Generally? Define truth.

Not really...Murder has always been 'killing without legal justification', in some form or another. The way murder is dealt with has changed, not murder itself.

Murder is not an action in and of itself; it is an action and a judgement upon that action, two distinct concepts, one of which includes subjective judgements from the laws being put on it.

The Majority decided slavery should be banned worldwide, and that all men have equal rights, rights that should not be invaded, and the freedom to do as they wish (within reason).

You call them stupid?

Oh really? Only recently, and the majority do NOT believe in the right not to be invaded, and DO NOT believe in equality of everyone, and DO NOT agree in how much freedom people should have.

Also, being stupid does not stop you from being right.

Let me put it bluntly to you my friend: Do not be so arrogant as to think that your mind and your skills in reasoning are superior to that of another, when you yourself have not provided any less of a measure of blatant assumptions without backup evidence of your own.

Do not assume that you are superior when you have not engaged him in all areas of the academic fields. Logic is a strange bed-mistress, and often times you find she is cheating on you, when you think she is on your side.

Likewise do not assume that you will always win, simply because you perceive your worldview to be more relevant.

This is a debate of Truth, Right, and Wrong, debate that, and not your perceived superiority, which for some reason seems to stem from your status of being an Oxford student. As seen here:

I am superior at logic to you. You have litte understanding of how to form and argue a coherent argument. I've shown time and time again that you have falacies or inconsistencies in your arguments.

You are not your professors, you are not your tutors. Your logic and theirs have flaws, and are no more superior than ours, especially in a world were you believe in 'non-absolutes' and 'relevance in opinion'.

No, but they agree I'm very good at logic. And deductive logic is not flawed; it is quite possibly the least flawed and most irrefutable thing on the planet, with the exception of cogito ergo sum.

Substantiate.

Substantiate people do not work from what they do not know, but from what they believe...? That they use the information at hand, rather than non-existant omniscient powers...?

not-right is 'wrong'.

Incorrect. Something can be not right without necessarily being wrong. In addition, your assertion of what is not-right is assertion, but things can be morally neutral, unless you make preconditions on what moral code you want to exist. In fact, you're also having the premise that there is a moral code, or everything is both not right and not wrong; hence, circular arguments and thus useless to the debate.

The right to exist is given upon the start of life.

On what basis? Just because you have existance doesn't give you a right to it.

 

[Hakeem]

So...open season on child rape, since they cannot defend themselves?

Is that how it works with laws? Of course not. Reciprocation comes from other humans, not laws.

The rest of what you've said in that post has no relevence to the debate on whether morality has any real basis besides assertions from opinions.

In order to debate the assertion that there is no universal set of morality, we must agree upon the definitions of the terms used. Your definition defines right and wrong as opinions. I also think it is a lacking definition.

Does anyone have better definitions than the ones I provided?
I think my definitions can apply to any moral system. All it takes is a variation is what X is.

In order to debate this properly, we must have a definition of the terms "right" and "wrong" as applies to the concept of morality. Defining the terms is not the same as defining a set of things that classify as right and wrong.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Is that how it works with laws? Of course not. Reciprocation comes from other humans, not laws.

I don't see your point.

In order to debate the assertion that there is no universal set of morality, we must agree upon the definitions of the terms used. Your definition defines right and wrong as opinions. I also think it is a lacking definition.

The definition of right and wrong IS a major part of morality.

Does anyone have better definitions than the ones I provided?
I think my definitions can apply to any moral system. All it takes is a variation is what X is.

Nihilist ones don't, off the top of my head.

In order to debate this properly, we must have a definition of the terms "right" and "wrong" as applies to the concept of morality. Defining the terms is not the same as defining a set of things that classify as right and wrong.

Right and wrong are defined by morality, not vice versa.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

I am superior at logic to you. You have litte understanding of how to form and argue a coherent argument. I've shown time and time again that you have falacies or inconsistencies in your arguments.

So far, you haven't proven as much as you think, besides that you are arrogant. And arrogance is not something to be proud of.

Oh really? Only recently, and the majority do NOT believe in the right not to be invaded, and DO NOT believe in equality of everyone, and DO NOT agree in how much freedom people should have.

If the majority did not believe in equality of everyone, or freedom that people should have, or even the right not to be invaded, then the world would be in the state of another world war, racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan would be booming like they were half a century ago and many millions of people would be dead as a result.

However, such a horrific world is avoided because the majority, or at least a significant portion of them, whom you arrogantly called stupid, believe in such virtues. Ask people you encounter on the street, and ask them if they believe some races are superior to other races. What do you think they would say?

No, but they agree I'm very good at logic. And deductive logic is not flawed; it is quite possibly the least flawed and most irrefutable thing on the planet, with the exception of cogito ergo sum.

Yes, deductive logic is hard to counter at many points, but you have not used deductive logic as much as you believe you have.

Substantiate people do not work from what they do not know, but from what they believe...? That they use the information at hand, rather than non-existant omniscient powers...?

You've no right to call what many people believe in, non-existant. Infact, you have little to no proof that they are non-existant, just as the people who believe cannot prove that they do exist. But they do have a right to believe in things, even if you happen to dismiss it.

On what basis? Just because you have existance doesn't give you a right to it.

And on what basis can you deny people the right to exist? People have a right to live their lives. Its not as if they are expected to kill themselves after birth.

Our very existance is something we have from the beginning. We have been given existance, whether its from natural events or from and omniscient power, I don't know, but I can definitely say that existance is something we cannot deny people.

 

[brad.dude03]

Dude, just because the Ku Klux Klan isn't banging on your front door, doesn't mean they don't exist anymore. There are still Skinheads and Racists and Cultists everywhere.

The Southern parts of America still have rampant racism, regardless of a black president.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

Dude, just because the Ku Klux Klan isn't banging on your front door, doesn't mean they don't exist anymore. There are still Skinheads and Racists and Cultists everywhere.

The Southern parts of America still have rampant racism, regardless of a black president.

I never denied the fact that they do exist, which they do. I just stated, that there would be far more if equality and freedom were not part of many people's beliefs.

 

[VeljkoM]

Isn't this maybe going little off topic, but just little?

 

[Captain Griffen]

If the majority did not believe in equality of everyone, or freedom that people should have, or even the right not to be invaded, then the world would be in the state of another world war, racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan would be booming like they were half a century ago and many millions of people would be dead as a result.

The world is not in a world war because one side is without the means to fight a conventional war, but war rages across the world...

However, such a horrific world is avoided because the majority, or at least a significant portion of them, whom you arrogantly called stupid, believe in such virtues. Ask people you encounter on the street, and ask them if they believe some races are superior to other races. What do you think they would say?

Most people are, in fact, racist, but say things like, 'I'm not racist, but...'. Look at studies on it, statistical data, etc.

Yes, deductive logic is hard to counter at many points, but you have not used deductive logic as much as you believe you have.

'Hard to counter'? Good deductive logic is IMPOSSIBLE to counter (however, you can dispute the premises). But ofc not everything I have said is deductive logic, as it is not the be all and end all (but it can destroy bad arguments utterly).

You've no right to call what many people believe in, non-existant.

Okay, you just lost any respect for telling me what I can and cannot say.

 

[Hakeem]

I don't see your point.

Laws have no bearing on reciprocation. If they do, it is only to stifle it.

The definition of right and wrong IS a major part of morality.

The definition of the terms is not relevant to morals. The idea of right and wrong is the important thing.

Nihilist ones don't, off the top of my head.

Then X is simply, "nothing." In that set of morals, no action is right or wrong, because nothing cannot be positively or negatively affected.

Right and wrong are defined by morality, not vice versa.

Yes, moral sets do define what is right and wrong. That is not the task I am giving. The task I purpose we solve right now is to have a common terminology to debate from. We can't debate if we don't understand each other.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

The world is not in a world war because one side is without the means to fight a conventional war, but war rages across the world...

War is not rampant across the world. In highly disputed and contested areas yes, but the rest of the world remains unscathed. There are plenty of countries that can spark a war at the scale of a world war. Think of the major powers that are present all around the world today, any one of them could potentially spark a war between the world, although that doesn't mean they'll win.

'Hard to counter'? Good deductive logic is IMPOSSIBLE to counter (however, you can dispute the premises). But ofc not everything I have said is deductive logic, as it is not the be all and end all (but it can destroy bad arguments utterly).

Disputing the premises is what I meant when I said "hard to counter" since, if you can dispute the premise, the whole deductive reason mayfall apart, thus there goes your argument.

Okay, you just lost any respect for telling me what I can and cannot say.

I don't care for your respect, infact I never knew I had any to begin with from you. But I care for the beliefs that so many people hold to this day, that many people believe in, with great hopes.

 

[Elenai]

Tell that to Kim-Jong-il.

He does not own his people, he rules them through fear, and through propaganda.

So why slavery as been abolished only since the XIXth century?
Slavery hasn't been abolished with a sudden revelation that you're your own person saying to themselves 'Hey it's worng!'.Slaves and some philosophers had to fight for it to make things change.
And since the XIVth century to XIXth century slavery were common and accepted by majority of population who'd benefit from it.

Eventually, mankind learns the fundamental truth that all men are equal.

From the begining of time there were no man

.

I used a poetic device...

Concept of destiny is dogmatic.
You can't always own yourself since one day you'll cease to exist.
I think you awefuly blindly believe in the moral that has been taught to you as something absolute,immutable,total and universal.
Remember that if you're free today is because many men had fought and died for it.It's not something aquired since the begining of time.
And it's not the case in many countrys.

You own yourself until you cease to be, depending on your view...either you cease to be, or you exist and own yourself forever. Either way you still own yourself.

Likewise, do not assume that I believe blindy in anything, Teh_Ephy can assure you of that much. I was not taught...I discovered.

I am free today because mankind realized that we own ourselves, and gave themselves for that cause freely. They died free, for something that was their right from the beginning.

Just because I put you in a cage, does not mean I own you, it means that I have merely held you hostage against your will.

Murder is not an action in and of itself; it is an action and a judgement upon that action, two distinct concepts, one of which includes subjective judgements from the laws being put on it.

Murder is still an action none the less, and still falls under what I have stated "you don't own the rights to another person's life"

Oh really? Only recently, and the majority do NOT believe in the right not to be invaded, and DO NOT believe in equality of everyone, and DO NOT agree in how much freedom people should have.

Also, being stupid does not stop you from being right.

Anyone who is half way civilized belives in the fundamental truths that you cannot own another individual. Just because they have taken a while to see it doesn't mean it didn't exist before that.

Prove that you can truly own a person without removing their humanity. Is it not true that all men should have equal rights? Do you even want to dare say that mankind should not be equal to each other?

I am superior at logic to you. You have litte understanding of how to form and argue a coherent argument. I've shown time and time again that you have falacies or inconsistencies in your arguments.

Says you.

What have you proved, what falacies have you shown? All I've seen is rhetoric...and 'relevence in opinion', and a whole ocean's worth of arrogance, and assumptions.

Show, not tell my friend.

No, but they agree I'm very good at logic. And deductive logic is not flawed; it is quite possibly the least flawed and most irrefutable thing on the planet, with the exception of cogito ergo sum.

You still assume, and they themselves are not the world's leading experts on logic.

You have not shown me deductive reasoning. You have shown me assumptions, and rhetoric. But I haven't seen a chart, or even anything resembling that which deduces what you claim. Or even sources for that matter.

Substantiate people do not work from what they do not know, but from what they believe...? That they use the information at hand, rather than non-existant omniscient powers...?

So you are using your opinion, and assumptions...Not deducted logic?

Incorrect. Something can be not right without necessarily being wrong. In addition, your assertion of what is not-right is assertion, but things can be morally neutral, unless you make preconditions on what moral code you want to exist. In fact, you're also having the premise that there is a moral code, or everything is both not right and not wrong; hence, circular arguments and thus useless to the debate.

I assert no more than you.

As for circular logic..."I believe I have superior logic, therefore I do, therefore you lose the debate, which proves I have superior logic, thus I believe I have superior logic".

On what basis? Just because you have existance doesn't give you a right to it.

Prove you don't.

 

[Callahan]

He does not own his people, he rules them through fear, and through propaganda.

Thus he owns them more than they own themselves.
You think you own yourself because you've been educated that way.
But if from the childhood you've been educated to love,obey,worship,listen the Dictator you're educated to be owned him.Most of north korean don't see any other truth but what kim says.
So yeah kiddies believe anything you taught them they don't have basis they're waiting to be educated.
Many north Korean people who manage to flee in South Korea commited suicide few time after their escape because none were there to tell them what to do.They lost all their basis.

Eventually, mankind learns the fundamental truth that all men are equal.

If it would be a fundamental truth why it's not the case?Maybe you learnt that supposed truth but not whole mankind.

I was not taught...I discovered.

You were taught.It tooks more than 2000 years for mankind to accept freedomship and human rights ;in occident at least.Don't make me think you discovered it all by yourself in less than 20 years.
You seems to not realize that you were educated thinking all your supposed truth, assumption are innate.
If you're free today also means that you were born in the right place.
If none were there to raise you I don't think you'd be able to discover those truth.
If moral were innate then what's would be the point of education?Why we'd waste money on building schools?
Ever heard of feral child?

 

[Elenai]

The North Koreans, they still own themselves even if they are brain washed. Though, ironically by being brainwashed they lose their humanity, and as such the knowledge of their rights as individuals.

If it would be a fundamental truth why it's not the case?Maybe you learnt that supposed truth but not whole mankind.

Mankind didn't learn the truth about bacteria until just recently (in terms of history being a very long story), yet bacteria still remained as truly existent, even though it took mankind a while to learn about it.

As for the Feral Child, the child knows by instinct that he is an individual.

As for equality: I did discover it, perhaps not in the traditional sense, but my teachers and parents did not say to me "you are equal to them", and infact a vast majority of people in my school were blatantly racist, as were their parents. I discovered this on my own, through my own studies, and my own research. Education gave me the tools to be able to find, and make the choice once the truth was revealed to me.

It was not my culture that taught me, it was me looking at history, and my own experiences.

Morality is innate, or else it would never have come about in the first place.

"A caveman did not just decide one day "rape is wrong"

 

[Callahan]

It was not my culture that taught me, it was me looking at history, and my own experiences.

But could a feral child learn the same conclusion as you from those observation?No.Because he can't read or speak a language.
If you were a feral child no matter you conscious of being individual you'll still need to be socialized to learn a language and being guided by someone to understand and interprete observation of your environement.

Or maybe you're so genius you figured out by yourself that the earth were spheric and not flat.Did you ever observed it by yourself?Did you ever traveled in outer space?Or Someone told you that it was this way and you accepted it?
Can you observe that it's the earth revolving around the sun and not the sun around the earth from where you are?Or someone told you it was that way and you believed it?

Morality is innate, or else it would never have come about in the first place.

"A caveman did not just decide one day "rape is wrong"

If it would be innate why some people act immoraly?
Why in some country justice system force raped woman and her family to compensate the disgrace 'she caused' to the raper and his familiy?Is it innate?
Maybe the need of a moral codes to allow people to leave in society is innate but not moral codes itself.
Some moral codes are considered immoral in other country.

 

[Elenai]

Or maybe you're so genius you figured out by yourself that the earth were spheric and not flat.Did you ever observed it by yourself?Did you ever traveled in outer space?Or Someone told you that it was this way and you accepted it?
Can you observe that it's the earth revolving around the sun and not the sun around the earth from where you are?Or someone told you it was that way and you believed it?

Don't insult me by taking what I said out of context, attempting to write my history, or painting me as a self proclaimed genius.

You know nothing of me, my history, or my past. Don't dare to assume otherwise that I did not uncover these truths on my own accord, and without the aid of my guardians, or my culture. I went on my own path and did my own research, looked at the research of others. My parents did not sit me down and say "black people are people too", I said that to myself after looking at history.

I learned much of what I know about history on my own, and the conclusions thus from such learning. My teachers were not particularly brilliant, barring one, my senior grade Government teacher, of whom we covered the Cold War, Middle East, and economics with, not civil rights.

But could a feral child learn the same conclusion as you from those observation?No.Because he can't read or speak a language.
If you were a feral child no matter you conscious of being individual you'll still need to be socialized to learn a language and being guided by someone to understand and interprete observation of your environement.

The feral child still knows that if he is put in a cage he doesn't like it, and he still knows that it is wrong to put him in a cage.

(and this is not counting 'capturing' one for a humane medical reason, as he would be sedated and not know it most likely)

Just because he isn't "intelligent", or "civilized", doesn't mean he is any less of a human being who knows that he exists, and that he is his own person.

If it would be innate why some people act immoraly?
Why in some country justice system force raped woman and her family to compensate the disgrace 'she caused' to the raper and his familiy?Is it innate?
Maybe the need of a moral codes to allow people to leave in society is innate but not moral codes itself.
Some moral codes are considered immoral in other country.

Morality is just as innate as our barbaric instincts.

Flight is just as innate, as fight.

The culture may be different, but the family still complains when their raped daughter must pay "it isn't fair", and they know it well.

EDIT: For my curiosity...Which of the developed civilized nations with a government that upholds equality have this system of justice?

 

[Callahan]

Don't insult me by taking what I said out of context, attempting to write my history, or painting me as a self proclaimed genius.

That's what your post inspired me quote again :

I was not taught...I discovered.

It means what it means.
It tooks billion years for humanity to come as far as we are and you're saying you re-discovered everything without being taught.
And it's not out of context.
You didn't discovered but you interpreted what you've observed.It's not the same thing.

You know nothing of me, my history, or my past. Don't dare to assume otherwise that I did not uncover these truths on my own accord, and without the aid of my guardians, or my culture. I went on my own path and did my own research, looked at the research of others. My parents did not sit me down and say "black people are people too", I said that to myself after looking at history.

You take part in your own education but you didn't do your whole education.And education isn't always a matter of conscious.Sometime thing come unconsciously to you.
You consider black people as equal people because people around you treated them as such.So there were no reason for you came out with such a conclusion that they were different so you naturaly conclude they were equal.
But when white people saw for the first time black people it was not that obvious or there wouldn't have been slavery.

I learned much of what I know about history on my own, and the conclusions thus from such learning. My teachers were not particularly brilliant, barring one, my senior grade Government teacher, of whom we covered the Cold War, Middle East, and economics with, not civil rights.

See you got a little help in your education.At least from those who wrote history books and record historic event.And even books are written from a subjective point of view even if historians try to be as objective as possible they slightly bent to one side.
In fact subjectivity is inherent to point of view.
The only true objective point of view is no point of view.
So you've been guided in you education.

The feral child still knows that if he is put in a cage he doesn't like it, and he still knows that it is wrong to put him in a cage.

But it seems the man who put him in cage don't think so.

Morality is just as innate as our barbaric instincts.

Barabric insitincts are Morality of others.

The culture may be different, but the family still complains when their raped daughter must pay "it isn't fair", and they know it well.

Actualy it often happens that the victim's family don't pay the compensation and let their raped daughter pay it after having denied her for ashaming their clan by being raped.
Pretty unfair hu?

 

[Elenai]

It means what it means.
It tooks billion years for humanity to come as far as we are and you're saying you re-discovered everything without being taught.
And it's not out of context.
You didn't discovered but you interpreted what you've observed.It's not the same thing.

Must you fuss with the garnish when the meat is still untouched? geez..Get to the meal!

But it seems the man who put him in cage don't think so.

The man who put him in the cage is wrong

Barabric insitincts are Morality of others.

No...Barbaric instincts like raping whomever you please just because you are horny isn't morality, that is called "I'm horny and I don't care, so I'm going to bend this braud over and give her a boink", to put it bluntly.

Actualy it often happens that the victim's family don't pay the compensation and let their raped daughter pay it after having denied her for ashaming their clan by being raped.
Pretty unfair hu?

Still not fair, and they know it well.


And once more: For my curiosity...Which of the developed civilized nations with a government that upholds equality have this system of justice?

 

[Captain Griffen]

You're all retarded with no understanding of how to debate anything I give up, now stfu.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

You're all retarded with no understanding of how to debate anything I give up, now stfu.

You see, when you make a comment like that and call people retarded, it always makes you look like the retard. Now, you should really stop embarassing yourself. You've proved yourself as having little idea of how to debate at all, with this sentence.

You talked arrogantly about how good you were at talking with logic, but you show no logic her and you show absolutely no debating skills. Try entering a debate and ending with "I give up, you're all retards and you all have no idea how to debate, now shut up!". What do you think will happen? Of course you'll lose the debate and embarass yourself.