next »

[team_q]

If you argue about 2+2=5 for higher values of 2, you might lose your nose!
Also, 2+2 = 22 if you are talkin' about strings!

[Lurk]

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.

Rinkuhero: The concentration camp is a good example of why objectivism is'nt taken seriously by philosophers; you're looking at the prisoners behavior, but what about those who put them there? So if I steal bread from the weak when imprisoned for my religious beliefs or ethnicity, my behavior is used later to reinforce a point in a theory about the lack of morality in nature, but it is never observed by the theorist that someone put me there for very anti-social reasons. The same logic could be applied to the dolphins killing the whale, where scientists believe it is due to turf wars for food, because of scarcity, created by man's over fishing, pollution, and climate change. But we still take the dolphin's gesture to put weight behind an argument that 'nature is cruel', which too often leads to a shrug and inaction in front of blatant injustice.
And I know that to define 'injustice' is to assume I have a 'superior' point of view, but that notion only exists if a third party, unconcerned by a distant situation can observe it. If two forces, on weak and one strong are confronted without an observer, the strong would claim justice on his side, and the weak would claim injustice; the observer could shrug and say that it's all relative, but then would'nt he only be warranting the acts of the strong?

[moi]

If you argue about 2+2=5 for higher values of 2, you might lose your nose!
Also, 2+2 = 22 if you are talkin' about strings!

And 1+1=11 for Jean-claude Van Damme.

[azeo]

Well, this will probably be my last post in this thread, just to try and clear up some more points.

Lurk: The hypocrite thing was me trying to show people that it is stupid for calling someone else a hypocrite. I would never do something like that. I would try to show them if they got really angry about kittens being kicked that they have done things like that too, and to try and understand the reasoning behind the attack. That, however, doesn't mean I put kitten kicking and bug squishing on the same level. And, I may have worded it wrong, but I never meant we shouldn't do something because it is cultural. The only time we shouldn't do something is if we don't agree. It's just I'm trying to show that, once again, nothing is infinite. There are no universal truths, and there will always be people with different views.

Also, I never called you wrong. I just don't believe the same as you. As I said about the whole polar opposites thing, because I don't agree doesn't me I think you're wrong.

Garthy: But we assume, while talking about math or any other factual argument, and that is our downfall. Why do we assume? Because it makes it easier. But what if you find someone who taught themselves math, by using completely different rules? It would be hard to communicate. And why would he do that? Because that is how he sees it. No, assuming is not evil, but assuming that everyone knows the same is. (I'm not saying you do, just a general comment)

For the pleasure thing, this sort of relates to the polar opposites. There is not just displeasure and pleasure, there is a whole range of things in between. If I killed someone accidentally, I would be crushed, and would define it as having not "pleasure" when I did it. If i killed someone to defend myself, I would still be crushed, but relieved, as I wouldn't die. Is relief, too, not a type of "pleasure". Pleasure is a category, I find, that we can put almost anything in. It is a simple thing that lets us either say we enjoyed something or didn't.

Corpus/deadeye: I understand that is why Skofo was banned, and yes I realize there was history, but I still feel that simply banning him only has a slight chance of changing his perspective. And, yes, there are many other forums out there, but that still doesn't change the fact that he got banned from one. Ever time I read something negative about something I've done, I feel sad, no matter how bad it is. Yes, I can take criticism, but that doesn't mean I enjoy it.

One last thought. If I were to call a black man a nigger, and he would call me racist, and I told him I meant it not as an insult, but as a description, would I be right? It is taken by society as a racist term, but I don't see it as a racist term. Would I still be considered racist? I meant no harm, but he took some. So what matters then? The means or the outcome? (theoretical)

Of course, I'm not calling anyone wrong in this thread. That would, in fact, go against my whole argument. I'm just saying I believe what I'm saying is more correct.

[Lurk]

Azeo: Don't worry . I kind of refined my original idea with this thread. I think that

If two forces, on weak and one strong are confronted without an observer, the strong would claim justice on his side, and the weak would claim injustice; the observer could shrug and say that it's all relative, but then would'nt he only be warranting the acts of the strong?

really sums up my own philosophy.
 Not taking a side in a life situation involving a strong and a weak means taking the strong's side, since he does'nt need any help to overpower the weak- only helping the weak brings balance. But it is really hard to act to side with the weak, because it usually means bringing the trouble on ourselves, sometimes it means risking your life. So we most often walk away, and then rationalize our reaction by saying that what we turned away from is 'part of nature', or that 'there is no right or wrong'.
As long as we can have civil discussions about these points, and be open to change, there is hope for humanity.

[Garthy]

azeo:

Notice that when TeamQuiggan and moi come up with alternate solutions for "2+2", they immediately qualify the system, yet do not explicitly state a definition for each numeral used, explanation that the numbering order implies that each numeral represents a multiplication by a power of ten, a definition of addition, a definition of equality, and so forth. In this case we work with assumptions that we can implicitly rely on certain proven axioms without a need to explicitly state them. As another example, for expediency we both are working on the assumption that we will continue this conversation in English. If I were to choose not to do so suddenly, it qiyks oeivlvkt vw cwet xibdyaubf.

You state that using assumptions is our downfall. I believe I have demonstrated the case where it is not so, the onus is now on you to demonstrate your position is true. The closest thing I can see is an implicit assumption that because assumptions are sometimes bad, they must be bad in general? This is a fallacy. The position seems somewhat disingenuous to me.

As for communicating with someone with a different mathematical system, I imagine this would be done in an exploratory fashion, to find the basis in common, and the differences between the axioms. The worst case is that you would need to exhaustively list every possible axiom, which is the case anyway if you cannot rely on assumption. Thus the difficulty of communication is equal or less when relying on certain assumptions, which immediately invalidates any argument that supports the position that making such assumptions is a negative thing.

As for relief being a pleasure, I answered that before you asked it, in my last post. If pleasure is a category, as you state, and you define it as whether you enjoyed something, and suggest that relief is pleasure, which would mean that you enjoyed the act of killing in self-defence, whilst simultaneously being "crushed", which would suggest that you didn't. Your position seems self-contradictory.

It really feels that I am spinning wheels here. I think perhaps I have approached things the wrong way. I see you offering theories and statements, with little to back them up. I point out fallacies and problems in what you are stating. You then move on, to more theories and statements, which I then dissect, and the cycle repeats. I have stated that the onus should be upon you to demonstrate your positions are true, yet in my words show that despite what I claim, I'll respond to such comments anyway. I really should know better by now.

So this is me, backing out of a discussion in such a way as to try to not draw too much criticism from the rest of the community for appearing to be horribly rude to you.

[Jolli]

 

[azeo]

But I feel no need to prove what I say is right. If you do not understand my views, as seems to be the case, whether it be my fault or yours, I did not come here to convince nor argue. I came here to give me opinion on things, and as it has been given, I feel no need to continue trying to convince others to my way of thinking.

[Zaphos]

On a related note, I was amused by this parody game from PETA: http://www.peta.org/cooking-mama/index.asp

... odd that the gameplay focuses on the preparation of a dead turkey, instead of the inhumane raising and slaughtering of the turkey?  Seems like a missed opportunity on their part!

[Inane]

  I'm not sure they makers have ever seen a cooked turkey..

[Renton]

Those PETA guys know how to make a meal look disgusting.