next »

[Matt Thorson]

YMM:
No, I'm not formally educated on the subject, but I do have a basic understanding of how humans function.

Morality for the sake of survival is not what I meant. Maybe it's not the right term to use and "compassion" may be a better one. I would argue that "compassion" not only may be, but in most cases probably IS contradictory to evolutionary survival. Compassion, for example, would be not leaving a weak member behind, even though doing so may hinder and harm the rest of the group.

I think that true compassion and humanity is granted only to the rational mind (see Humanism), a compassion that is not based in instinct, but based on the rational understanding of the things that you do.

But in the end, compassion can be explained by evolutionary and psychological reasons too.  I'm not saying I don't agree with the notion of "pure" compassion, but it isn't hard to argue against it either.

[Ivan]

Most of our behavior can be reduced to those reasons. Rational thought is a product of our brain, which we developed through evolution. I think you're right in that in the end, compassion can be considered a survival instinct because more compassionate societies are less volatile and will probably last longer, but in the immediate sense, i would still argue that it has more to do with rational thought.

A child kicks a kitten because he has no rational awareness of what the kitten experiences when he is being kicked. An adult person is aware that a kitten has nerve endings, which will cause him pain much like the pain that that person experiences when he is being hurt. He is also aware that the kitten is an animal and as such cannot rationalize the situation, so he knows that it will be terrified and confused.

[mrfredman]

I see a lot of bizarre avatars on the Tigsource forums that I want to ask about- and yours is one of them. If there's a story or explanation behind it, I'd love to know.

Its from my Bootleg Demakes entry. I originally used it to assert my authority of the hordes of /v/tards our game drummed up, but its grown on me and I think it'll stick around for a little while.

Dude, Animal Planet is really fucked. I get like free cable that comes with my internet cable and I get Animal Planet HD once in awhile. And it constantly shows things that are kind of upsetting to most people, but assuming their target audience are animal lovers, I can't imagine what they must feel. I guess they wanted to rebrand it as more Xtreme or something, cause every time I flick it on, its like "WATCH AS THE MOOSE SLOWLY DROWNS IN THE BROKEN ICE UNDER HIS TREMENDOUS WEIGHT" and shit like that. My girlfriend has actually burst into tears a few times just paging through it on the way to another channel.

I know seriously, its like ever since Steve Irwin died and they failed to successfully exploit his daughter they've turned to 'animals out of control' programming. Its either those shows of animals hurting people or people hurting animals, or shows about how to properly subjugate your canine companions, which I really dislike as well. They really need to up the generic nature documentary count, I mean what happened to Mutual of Omaha's wild kingdom? There are like 500 episodes of that show and they are mostly good.

Back to Whale Wars.
I agree that its better to be doing something, even if its something that is only helping a little bit, but I don't think the people on the Sea Shepard are doing anything at all to help. First of all, from what television has showed me the crew, and especially the leaders, seem to be incredibly selfish and incompetent and the struggle they are pursuing isn't doing anything to help anyone. Rather its perpetrating this myth that saving the whales is still a high conservation priority and its distracting people's focus from real issues. I guess I don't so much fundamentally disagree with what they are doing, but the way are going about it and the tone of the show.

[shrimp]

The sooner they can grow meat in vats, the better!

Which begs the question, isn't artificial life, life? Do androids dream of electric sheep? Is Deckard a replicant or not?

I'm not talking about growing whole animals with brains, just the meat... maybe a whole body without a brain. Technologically it doesn't seem to be too far away. I don't find it particularly appetizing but as a junk food option it sounds OK

Lots of great posts here, I've enjoyed reading!

[Gainsworthy]

Screw the whole animal, vat-grown. That's just a waste of space. You could grow whatever you want, whatever shape you want, which basically means orchards of T-Bones and whatnot. Or cubes of meat. I've always been a fan of The Cube as a food shape.

As for the re-branding of documentaries? It's crazy. Even David Attenborough's fine work is advertised with an extreme voice and tone these days. Well, Australian extreme, which is pretty nice and friendly compared with AMERICAN BEAR EXTREME PREDATOR.

[Delmore]

To go along with what the first post in this topic was focusing on, did anyone ever see the movie Milo & Otis? I looked back upon it recently, and it was interesting to learn how so many animal died filming it and what kind of stunts they forced them to do. Pretty odd too, considering the English version was aimed for a young audience!

[azeo]

I am going to put this warning here, as this post will probably turn into a giant ramble/wall of text (which may talk about Skofo's ban). I'm writing this before I actually write the post, and I'm going to leave it here just to try and illustrate what I set out to do. Who knows, maybe my entire post will change.

I live in British Columbia, Vancouver Island specifically. Vancouver Island is covered in a lot of tree's, and it is considered a coastal rain forest. As such, it rains a lot, and it is rather damp all year round. There are two common animals I really see a lot of; Deer in the open, and slugs in the forests. I would now like to tell two stories, one about my experience with slugs and one about my brothers experience with a deer.

One night, after coming back from restaurant at some young age (from 6-8 I think) one of my older brothers told me about how putting salt on a slug makes it shriveled up. He never mentioned that it died, just that it shriveled up. So we both went to the kitchen and were about to get some salt when either my mother or my father stopped us (I don't remember who) and asked what we were doing. We told them, and then they sat us down and explained to us what would happen if we put salt on the slug. As I found out it would kill the slug, I wasn't horrified by myself, but mystified. How did I not realize this? And I was so ready to do it, just to see if it really worked. I hadn't thought about anything other then just seeing how cool it is, not what would happen after or what would happen before. I had only ever killed a slug accidentally before that, as I didn't enjoy squishing them. And I had almost just killed one, but not fast, but slow and cruel. I now understood that you always have to think about effects, even if they aren't obvious to you at the start. I had never "hurt", that is to cause pain for no reason but pleasure, anything before.

A couple years later, when I was about 10-12, I was in a day camp program with the local community center. We were going on a hike, and along the way, we stopped and watched as two slugs mated. It was one of the most disgusting things I had ever seen at that point. And it didn't do a thing to me. One of the other kids poked it, revealing all the dirt stuck to their slime, but that was it. We just watched for a bit, got bored, the continued hiking. On the way back, we saw the slugs again, and they were still mating. Now, I'm not actually sure if they were mating, but to this day that is what I think they were doing.

Now, I am seventeen (as of, technically, yesterday) and for the last five or six years I've been going to a summer camp run by the YM/YWCA. I've learnt a lot about respecting animals and the environment from my time there, whether it be to "take only pictures and leave only footprints" or to not throw my apple core into the bushes (It may upset the ecosystem). I now respect animals greatly, as I always have, but will stand up for them now and tell off my friends for squishing bugs. I also respect people a great deal more, and cringe whenever, in the halls of my school, I hear someone call someone else a "fag" or a "retard". I even regret it that in this community, which I admire so much, it is accepted. Of course, I will not push this on you guys because I feel you should realize why it is wrong.

This year was the first year I worked there, and two things happened. As I was walking one of the trails, coming back from somewhere, I came across a slug. I immediately knew what had happened. It was curled up in a ball and dry, and seem to be a slightly grayer colour. I knew it was either dead or dying, and it was obvious that some campers had taken salt from one of the tables and put it on the poor thing. I felt a tinge of sadness, but after that, kept walking.

A couple weeks later, I was dealing which a problem kid when I came across a newt far from the lake the camp is built around. These newts would die if any human hand touched them above water, and as such, it was nigh impossible to move them. I luckily had a full water bottle and tried to push it into it. Another cabin soon came and watched as I struggled with the newt, using sticks and leaves to get it into the water. One kids asked why I didn't just pick it up, and I was tempted, as it would be a lot faster then the twenty minutes it took me, but another kid explained what would happen. Keep in mind, these kids were between 6-10. I finally got the newt into the bottle, and I walked to the lake with the trouble kid, let him let it go, then explained to him why we should be nice to animals.

That was the slug story, now I must give a little background about the deer story.

My other brother (not the one mentioned above) has always had trouble fitting in. Eventually, he found his place in emo/goth/metal/punk culture, and as such, you can probably imagine him. Long scraggly hair, pale, patches all over his black clothes and a favoring of the satanic. He has a bible, he goes to rituals on Halloween and solstice, the whole nine yards. But he is also a very openly emotional person, having wanted to be an actor until his dreams were dashed by the local university (UVic).

Last year, after coming back from a month of training at camp, I found out that one day while driving down the forested, unlit road leading to my house, my brother had hit a deer. The deer's neck had broken, but it was still alive, suffering. My brother had had to go to my house, grab the ax (As we have nothing else) and kill the deer. I found out that he cried when he did this, and said it was one of the worst experiences in his life (He, also like my other brother, spent a substantial amount of time at this Y camp too).

A couple months ago, my dad had picked me up at work and on the way home, we too hit a deer. It survived, but during the moment after we hit it and I saw the fur fly up in the air, I feared for the deer, not because I didn't want it to die, but because I didn't want to have the horrible experience my brother had gone through.

I feel Skofo makes a great point. Everything we do is relative, and essentially, equal.

My parents often give me hell about spending too much time on the computer, as opposed to doing homework or playing sports or even reading a book (while I do read a lot). They say that video games are useless, that they don't serve a purpose but to entertain and ask me while I do it. I explain that I play them because of just that, they're fun. I do learn from someone of them, about observation and other things, but they are , primarily, fun. Then they ask me why I don't just want movies. And I ask, what's the difference? Because our society accepts movies more then they do of games? Sure, that is changing, but they are still not equal. What makes a movie more acceptable then a game? Nothing but our society. What makes selfless acts more acceptable then selfish acts? Nothing but our society.

Skofo started out rough, and tried to straighten it out by saying that it doesn't matter, as it is natural. He also went a little extreme, which I feel is unnecessary, but all in all, I feel his ban was unjustified. However brash he was, however aggressive, no one should ever get banned for just expressing their opinion. I've been a part of a couple different forum communities out there, and there are two I hold in high esteem; The Bob and George community, and this one. The problem with the BnG community is that they are too strict, with a few key members being able to get away with stuff because, hey, they've been there a while. I've seen this here too, but I also feel we're all old enough (well, maybe not me) and mature enough to take these few people like Skofo in stride, even if they do aggravate and annoy us. But that is a little off topic.

Kicking a kitten, I find, is barbaric. But so, to me, is squishing a bug for no reason. I kill misquotes all the time, because they bug me. And what is it to bug? To cause displeasure. So essentially, I am killing for pleasure. I can't guarantee that they die fast, and frankly, I don't care. If kicking this kitten gives them pleasure, no I do *not* condone it. But if might. That doesn't mean I don't agree with them, it's just they might get pleasure from it. That doesn't make it right, nor does it make it wrong. To me, it is wrong, but to them, it is right. And what makes my opinion more important then theirs? The fact that it is held by the masses where I come from? How about because it is "socially" acceptable? I'm not a fan of underage drinking. I understand it, but I also don't understand why people vandalize things (as my friends have tried to get me to join in with them) for petty things. If they vandalized for political reasons, I would join in. But that is because I see them as more important.

Nothing is set in stone, and nothing is for sure. Nothing is infinite, and nothing should ever be considered such. Math isn't even infinite. 2 + 2 does not always equals 4. I could say that, to me, those twos are not the same because they are on different sides of the + sign, so the one of the left actually equals one. Or that the + sign doesn't me add at all!

This doesn't mean, however, something can't last a long time, or be accepted by a lot of people. I find something wrong, you may find it right, and yes, it *does* matter. However, as you argue your points and talk about what you think is right, try to understand what they are saying. "Put" yourself in their shoes. Look on the other side of the coin. I often find myself being the devil's advocate, making fun of people even, just to get them to defend themselves, think about how they could be wrong. Never, ever accept one truth, it is just wrong.

As a passing, last note, if you have ever read A Clockwork Orange and not just seen the movie, you would already know what I am about to say. Sometimes, it is natural for people to be horrible, or people to do things I consider horrible. But we are creatures of learning, of changing, no different from any other animal. We grow, and we regret. It isn't science, it isn't culture, and it isn't always true. But it *is* something.

This post is almost 2000 words long, and just as a finishing summary,  I agree with Skofo for the most part. I've been thinking about this subject for a while, and I am glad I can vent a little of it here. Please don't consider me as anything else but someone who wants to share his opinion. Cause that is all this is, an opinion, nothing else. I'm not trying to force this on any of you, I'm not trying to make you stop saying gay or fag as an insult, although that would make me happy, and yes, I have looked on the other side of the coin of that argument, as I used to do it too before I thought deeper about it. I stumbled upon this thread because I saw Skofo was banned, and wondered why, and I will say, for the last time, I do not agree with the reasoning. Maybe I haven't been here long enough, but please, don't hate me because I disagree.

This post is probably 2000 words now.

[Garthy]

mrfredman: Looks like I've got some digging to do to figure it out- thanks for the starting point. (I'm not too familiar with the demakes compo, /v/ memes, or Gang Garrison- yet).

shrimp: I imagine in time the quality would far surpass natural stock, since you could combine the positive attributes of different cuts of meat and grow the hybrid. One day there'll be Wagyu-grade pseudo-meat burgers in fastfood.

Gainsworthy: Hm.. it would be pretty nice to be able to get a packet of T-Bone and Scotch-Fillet seeds, pop them in the garden or the meat-a-tron, and grow a bunch of tasty steaks. I hadn't heard about documentary rebranding- how bizarre.

Delmore: Is that true? Do you have any links/similar on that for me to read up on it? I hadn't heard that about Milo and Otis at all.

azeo: Wow. I'll have to give that a reread and share some thoughts. Might take a bit.

[Garthy]

azeo:

I'll be fairly brief, despite the temptation to respond to the entire thing.

You have an interesting writing style- some very large tangents, for example: details on your brother's religious beliefs. I'm not entirely sure if you like to embellish or are deliberately messing with us? I'll assume the former for now.

Personally I feel your brother did the right thing with the deer. It would not have been an easy thing to do, but he chose to put his personal comfort aside to end the suffering of another creature.

The games/movie thing is really just a difference of opinion. Both are entertainment, but I would argue that games are superior as they are interactive.

Regarding forum bans, the actions that can lead to a ban really define the type of community that forms. There will always be someone testing the limits. As for "no one should ever get banned for just expressing their opinion", any offensive comment can be rephrased as an opinion. If I made comments relating to the unrestrained sexual promiscuity of another poster's mother here, should it be accepted simply because it is my opinion? I would say not. Polite company, as it is, has certain rules associated with it. As in real life, if you say the wrong thing, you may be asked to leave. Unlike real life, it is easy to just make another account and come back.

Right and wrong isn't simply about what someone feels is right or wrong for them. I believe that right and wrong depends on the reasoned, educated arguments that one can make for either side- and yes, culture does affect this somewhat (unfortunately). For example, torturing an animal without reason is "wrong" because of the concept of "cruelty". We know what it is like to suffer, and to cause a creature capable of suffering the same pain- particularly without reason- is inherently wrong. As for why it is right- I will leave that argument to someone who advocates such a position, but there is not a lot that can be said without the response being: "And if I was to do that to you?". Also, consider a society where it was customary to strike a child across the face when it is born. Again, it comes to the reasoned, educated arguments for whether it is right or not. Striking a child like this could cause harm, so I would argue it is wrong. I cannot think of a sensible counterargument. In this case, it would not matter whether the masses decided it was acceptable ("right") or not. I would argue that mass opinion can be aligned with what is right and wrong, but it certainly does not define it.

But then, how do we define "right" and "wrong"? This leads to the next bit.

2 + 2 *does* equal 4, because we agree on certain mathematical axioms by default. If you say that numbers on the left are worth half as much, you aren't presenting the same problem. You are presenting a different problem, under your altered framework. You statement becomes: 2 + 2 = 3, if the leftmost "2" is actually "1". This is also true, because you have clarified the framework on which it is based. Another example: 2 + 2 = 11, base 3. Again, the framework has been modified, and it is a different problem. To ease communication, we do not explicitly communicate default assumptions every time we make a statement or proposition. We communicate only the differences. For example, we assume base 10, unless stated otherwise. If we communicated default assumptions every time, even the most basic greeting would take a lifetime to state. And leaving implicit assumptions unstated is not equivalent to a statement that all possible assumptions are permitable. Besides, two-way communication is available to rectify any ambiguity in assumptions anyway.

When you say: "I kill mosquitoes all the time, because they bug me. And what is it to bug? To cause displeasure. So essentially, I am killing for pleasure.", I think you are mistaken. You kill to avoid displeasure, which is not the same as killing for pleasure. The situation where someone comes at you with a knife and you kill them, versus casually killing someone, are very different. If you wish to make an argument as to whether these somewhat different situations are the same, be my guest- the onus to show this is on you.

There is a lot more that I could respond to, but I think I'll leave the rest of it for now.

[Problem Machine]

Quick note: Mosquitoes account for more human fatalities than any other animal on the planet. No human should feel the slightest bit guilty for killing one.

[azeo]

As I am tired, and about to go to sleep, I will try to keep this brief. I did not lie at all during the stories I told. I may have embellished a bit, what part did you believe was fake? The fact that he has a sort of "bible" or that he attends the masses? Both are true. I also feel my brother did the right thing, but it was not the act that matter, but the outcome.

Despite being a satanist, although I am not very informed of the matter, he did not come from the duty feeling happy (which would make me worried) or feeling as if, yes it is sad, but it had to be done (which I would expect more.

For both the games/movie thing and the math thing, as well as the right and wrong thing, those all led to the nothing is infinite thing, as you say we assume certain things to make life easier. But the minute we stop assuming those things, you may wonder at what you learn. Try talking to a person, and every time they use slang, ignore it. It will change a conversation greatly.

Specifically, for the games/movie, I was not talking of opinion, but the general idea in today's society. I feel we can all agree games are not as widely accepted as movies quite yet. And it relates back to opinions, but I feel I was quite unclear on that fact.

The forum ban thing, I also feel I miss-worded. What I meant to get across is that he argued another side of an argument, however horribly, but it was not just random, unintelligent spam. It may have been spam, although I doubt it, but it was not unintelligent. However, I do not know about any of this posters other exploits, just those in this thread.

The mosquito thing? Just an example of how ones ideas can be radically different, and more of a means to address the whole hypocrisy thing going on in this thread. It is impossible *not* to be a hypocrite, and we must realize that, as I have said, no rule is infinite.

Also, I hold my same view on the displeasure thing. I would find killing someone rushing at me with the intent of killing me and killing him instead highly pleasurable, considering what would have happened had no one intervened. Sure, emotionally scarred too, but still happy that I lived, and thus, pleasured. When I am camping, and there are no mosquitoes, that too is pleasurable, considering the alternative.

I also forgot to mention one thing, that is of the fact that there are few true polar opposites. People are too often caught up in the act of either defending an argument or proving it wrong to consider that they might actually stand somewhere else. For example: Never kick a kitten, always kick a kitten. People could stand on either side. But people could also stand on the kick a kitten only on a certain day, or if it was attacking something.

And once more, I do regret that Skofo was banned. Perhaps he can come back one day, as I feel he just needs to learn to calm down a little and not be so... arrogant.


Edit: Not very brief I suppose...

[Lurk]

Azeo: I think where Skofo missed the point, is that the news from cnn described a group of TEENAGERS kicking a kitten; children, I would be saddened, but not overly disgusted. Teenagers are a step away from adulthood, such a display of lack of empathy to me is a sign that someone did'nt properly educate them somewhere. Like in your newt story- explaining it to the trouble kid and have him participate in the proper way to treat the creature was probably the best thing you could do.

Also, in such an argument, you cannot extend the reasoning to everything. It's bad philosophy if I say 'kicking a kitten is wrong' and you answer 'you hypocrite, you think kicking a kitten is wrong but you would crush a bug without a thought', because you assume something about my reasoning that could be false. And you eventually derail a simple issue into an incredible debate about the futility of anything and the fact that morality is culturally relative; but in human society, progress is never made by saying 'let's not act on this premise because this is a cultural thing'.

Like if you went to another country, and saw something you felt was repulsive to your own ethics, you could just cross your arms and say, 'this is their culture, I should respect it'. But that would say a lot more about the frailty of your own morality than about theirs. It is not about the superiority of one's ethical view, because there is a difference between saying 'kicking kittens is wrong' and 'you have to make sure your kittens are vaccinated, and hugged every 5 minutes, and their sandbox cleaned every day'. So in the case of a culture clash,let's say a public stoning, you could just say 'stoning a woman to death is wrong', which would be common sense- again, I know some could come up with a 'that's a cultural point of view' logic, but I say it is the philosophy of the comfortable who never are confronted with these things; how would you feel if your sister/wife/girlfriend/mother was stoned to death for wearing shorts? Would you still hold to your 'it's their culture, everything is relative' line? I hope not.

The fact that you would'nt want to finish off the dear like your brother did is more about the way he had to do it. If he could have just put his hand of the dying beast and whispered him to oblivion, it would have been a peaceful, spiritual experience. But the gory finish with an ax, I don't think many people would walk away from this one unscarred.

Rinkuhero: Yes, they were stoning and drowning cats in the medieval era. They also believed you could buy your way into heaven and that if someone slaughtered his adversary in a dispute, it meant god was on his side...oh...I see your point...

[Garthy]

azeo:

Bit late here, so I'll have to be fast, might not cover everything. Please forgive the mistakes in advance.

I did not identify a part of your comment that I felt was fake, I mentioned that I thought you might be deliberately messing with us. I came to this possible theory based on the degree to which you embellished on the details of your brother, many of which did not seem relevant to the story you posted. Of note also is that I post and comment in many different places, and some of the places I post in are known for their trolling. So I am perhaps a little oversensitive to it.

When I state that certain default assumptions are made, I am talking in the context of factual communication shortcuts, not opinions or moral judgments. As such, if we ignore certain unstated assumptions, things may not make sense. For example, if we look at 2+2, decide that we don't want to assume base 10, then we can't get any further in solving it. But why would you do that? I'm not sure this is any more profound than the fact that it is difficult to make sense of a sentence if you substitute the word "apple" in for every third word. Literally true, but it doesn't really prove anything significant.

Re games and movies, your experience might be biased by your parent's opinion on the matter. Most of the people I have spoken to are completely fine with both. Some have a preference for one over the other, but are quite accepting of both.

Re the pleasure/displeasure thing, I feel that from reading your comments we may experience this in very different ways. As such it might be a bit difficult to compare. I would, for example, feel horrified if I was put in a situation where I had to kill someone to defend myself, and would likely be sick for several days. I could not derive pleasure from it, and yes, I'm certain that relief is not pleasure.

Regarding polar opposites (do you mean "moral certainties/ambiguities"?), in my previous post (reply 87, page 6), I cover the reverse situation where I feel that killing a cat would be humane, and killing a bug inhumane, so I am quite aware that it is possible to frame a context in which the "right" things to do becomes "wrong", and vice versa. In fact, a very general template covers this: You can turn a "wrong" into a "right" by adding: "and if you *don't*, someone innocent will be severely harmed", and a "right" into a "wrong" by adding: "and if you *do*, someone innocent will be severely harmed". So yes, context matters, I understand what you are saying.

I would not worry too much about the ban. There are plenty of places online that you can go if you feel slighted, and if pride isn't an issue then sometimes asking nicely will suffice. As it stands, he overstepped his welcome, and was banned. It's akin to being asked to leave, not permanent decapitation. Was it right or not? I'm not too fussed. If banning is draconian or ineffective, people will leave, and in time, noone will remain. That there is still a community here suggests that the mods aren't doing too badly. I find it hard to get worked up over the ban. It'll probably be a temporary thing, by whatever means, and barely affect him at all (apart from a bit of anger for a few days). He probably has a new temporary account already.

Anyway, enough from me, it's late, I'm falling asleep, and it wasn't my intention to post excessively in the topic. I'm worried I'm drowning out other posters.

[Lurk]

Thanks to all for this thread, it was(I think)my first encounter with objectivism I guess. It prompted me to research it a bit, as I remembered reading about 'Atlas Shrugged' a while ago, and determining by the content that it probably was something that would only be resonating in educated rich white males who lead a comfortable life and can afford to position themselves as above the concerns and struggles of 'mainstream' society. I guess it could be studied as a valid theory, but I find some of its tenets are very hard to take seriously if you're born in a poor country and have to fight everyday to get somewhere in life.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Rinkuhero: Yes, they were stoning and drowning cats in the medieval era. They also believed you could buy your way into heaven and that if someone slaughtered his adversary in a dispute, it meant god was on his side...oh...I see your point...

Exactly! And the things you believe would be equally ridiculous and obviously false to people in 1000 years. Don't kid yourself and believe we're anywhere significantly closer to the truth than they were. We're perhaps a few inches closer in a distance of miles to the destination. And we've backtracked in some areas too.

It's fine to believe in an objective morality, I believe in one myself, it's just that nobody should believe that anything our current culture believes about morality has anything to do with this objective morality. If you and your culture agree on something, chances are you're both wrong.

[Lurk]

Would you be able to hold this philosophy if you were part of the downthrodden? Would you still hold it if you were the defenseless kitten? That is the main problem I have with an objective philosophy, it is too often held by people in very comfortable, riskless situations. A perhaps more naive approach of 'do unto others' is applicable in any scenario.

[moi]

HOLY SHIT GUYS EPIC THREAD lol
At first I was then I was  then I was then I was  but then I was  :D

At first I felt sorry that skofo got banned, but then I thought, why the hell would I care that skofo got banned? it was not ME that was banned, so me feeling sorry for skofo was UNNATURAL ,and I tried very hard to find a justification for feeling sorry for skofo but I couldn't so I just didn't care any more.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Well, just because you believe in an objective morality doesn't mean you believe that you are any good at upholding it or figuring it out. For instance, if I were in a concentration camp I'd probably steal food from other innocent prisoners to survive, even if it means they starve and I don't (this was common in concentration camps, the stronger stole food from the weaker), but that doesn't mean I'd think those things are good to do.

I believe in a theoretical objective morality: it exists, but there's no way to know what it is or what one should do in any given situation, because we don't have enough information and we're not smart enough, so we shouldn't even attempt to figure it out aside from a few things which are almost always a good idea to do (like not lie and not use force on other people).

[Corpus]

It wasn't Skofo's argument that was the problem, azeo. It was the delivery. He managed to give everything he said a very unpleasant, confrontational air.

[deadeye]

And it wasn't just because of this thread, either.  He has a history.

A rather long history.

Edit:
Though to be honest Skofo was a little more tame in this thread than he has been in the past.  Even so, I think the ban was fully warranted.  It had been a long time coming.