next »

[Skofo]

Haowan: I know, but it reminds me of a younger me. I would go on forums and argue impossible positions with a dark, cold wit with a gasping forum audience. I did not really believe my empty arguments, because they were only attacks, and not real principles. But I would ressent the condescending, inevitable post that would deem me a troll or a youngin'. Ah, those were the days...
At least, I can admire Skofo's sharp mind, and he made me laugh out loud in one of his retort, so clever it was. I believe smart people have to come to proper conclusions about life, in time, and I have no doubt he will someday, and contribute greatly to humanity's ascent to something 'better'.

So suddenly you're more smart than me because I have a differing point of view from yours, eh?

I'd say that you're the one arguing an impossible position, because you have nothing to argue. You believe that your emotional response to stimuli is superiour to other people's, in some way. I know this because you have not argued anything besides the fact that some things make you feel a certain way which is better than some things making other people feel another way, which is not even really even an argument. You have not explained why your emotional reactions are more "good" than other people's differeing emotional reactions. I've been arguing that there is no right or wrong answer, while you persisted that your specific reaction to stimuli is still better than anyone else's, and written off anybody that disagrees with you as cold, machine-like, psychopathic and wrong without arguing any universally logical points. And you're the indisputably smarter one here?

It hurts the fucking kitten, Skofo.

Why don't you go around kicking children or random strangers on the street?  Is it only because you're afraid of the consequences to yourself?

I am not saying that I enjoy hurting kittens. I knew that someone would start accusing me of this. I am saying that it's not right nor wrong because everyone reacts to things differently. Kicking kittens is not universally and indisputably wrong. Lurk tried to argue that his opinions are somehow better than logic, nature and collective human opinion, but has never gotten around to explaining why (hint: it's actually a trick question with no right or wrong answer).

In India people presumably are raised by their culture to gasp and scream and murder people that hurt cows, while we have relatively little problem with that here. This is what I've been arguing: this is all relative. You can not say that one's opinion is better or worse about this because it all differs depending on the discretions of other people. Lurk tried to write off the people that hurt the kitten as horrible and psychopathic and having at least two dozen psychological disorders, while this is simply not true.

[Chris Whitman]

Skofo, ultimately you have to take a moral stand on the issue somewhere.

Most people try to pick something in between "It's okay to murder people" and "Don't step on that bacterium!"

Admittedly, we seem to like to make our ethical axioms a lot more basic than "no murder," citing as reasons for not murdering other people the idea that others have feelings, as we do, and autonomy and do not desire to be killed.

You're correct that this is all relative, to some extent, but what you are leaving out is the one thing that is not relative, which is having to take a personal stand on the issue. Although there must, even just by the way logic is constructed, be either some proximal point or a circular argument, you can't just simply say no ethical construct is good enough, because you are forced to adopt one to function in the world.

You have an a priori understanding of what it means to be an ethical person living in our society: of what is expected from you and of what you expect from others. This is an integral part of our social reality, and there is really no getting around it. What we can do is employ logic to analyze how our actions might differ from our principles and examine the differences in our behavior to determine how the principles of one person might differ from another's.

Just coming out and saying, "It's all relative; it doesn't matter," is completely useless. We still have to function in the world, and we have to adopt an ethics (or really, deal with ethics we have adopted) to do that.

[Chris Whitman]

I mean, look, you can't badmouth someone for taking a personal stand on the issue.

You have your own feelings about how cats should be treated, for example, and if you came upon a cat being mistreated while you were wandering around one day you would have a reaction to that based on your reasoning, based on how you have been socialized, etc.

It's good to point out that ethics are relative. However, it does no good to simply counter everyone's point by continuing to explain that they are relative. We already know this: it does not help us know how to better conduct ourselves.

Edit: additionally, if you're going to point to the relativity of ethics as reason for not imposing one's ethics on someone else, keep in mind that ethics are instructions on how to conduct ourselves primarily as social animals. They are always inherently prescriptive. We need to live together in the same society, which requires coming to some consensus about how to live.

It's just no good to say "Everyone do what you think is right" because sooner or later something important to someone else is going to get stepped on. Not dealing with this is not an option.

[Valter]

You keep talking about how things are all "natural". Humans are not natural.

Most "natural" species reproduce and die at a large rate. Humans don't die as quickly as other species. Science has taught us how to lower mortality rates, so that we reproduce more quickly than we die. We broke the natural cycle, so we can't really consider ourselves natural anymore.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a whole-hearted omnivore. But I don't try to justify the fact that I eat meat by saying that it's "natural" to do so.

I guess it just comes down to personal morals. If you think have any kind of moral compass, I think you would find that microwaving cats would be a bad thing. If you are entirely morally bankrupt, though, I suppose you wouldn't mind. I think that torture of anything is entirely wrong.

Just don't try to blame it on how "Natural" it is, because that's bullshit.

[Lurk]

So suddenly you're more smart than me because I have a differing point of view from yours, eh?

I did not say I was smarter than you, I'm an artist, lazy and emotion prone. I often don't think too much before speaking, which sometimes lead me into trouble. I tend to act to please others, because I had trouble fitting in as a youth, because I could'nt meet the popular standards at the time.
And I don't think we hold very different opinions, it's just that I can't be where you stand anymore, I just am too saddened when I see such behavior which I find wasteful and repulsive. It's never about superiority Skofo, it's about where you want to stand in the paradoxal fellowship we hold with other living things. I know the steak came from a cow. And that the cow was badly treated. And that the tuna from the can probably contains dolphin skin and chemicals. I still feed the birds so they don't die through the cold winter, or invite the stray dog to spend the night in my basement, because it's the least I can do.

I Like Cake: Richard Dawkins, in his tirade again'st organized religion, brought up an interesting point about ethics, and how it's probably a genetic thing where we get along to survive, so some things are inherently wrong, in every society, and then you have the richer societies being able to develop new, superfluous ethics (ex:ethical treatment of animals).

[Saker]

what the fuck 0.0 ... yep . i hate cats .. but i didn't reach that level ... i love to kick people tho

[Valter]

Also: As I Like Cake said, you can't just say that your own opinion doesn't matter. It does matter. I think kicking kittens is wrong, and so is anybody who would consider kitten-kicking to be fun. You think that kicking kittens is wrong, but you don't care if other people kick kittens.

The problem is that you're saying that no one else has the right to tell you that it's wrong. If I had a son, and he asked me one day "would it be all right to kick kittens?", I would obviously respond with "no!" Everybody has the right to try to influence your opinion on the matter, and trying to stop them breaks your own argument.

You say that other people have the right to kick cats if they want to. Then you say that other people have no right to tell you why they think that kicking cats is wrong. Do you hate it when people try to impose themselves on your life? I don't suppose you think the cat feels especially happy about people imposing themselves on his life.

Other people have every right to tell you how you should act. Nobody is forcing you to agree, and no one is forcing you to tell people why you don't agree. If you don't like something, just let it be.

[Corpus]

God dammit objectivism is a plague upon this earth because people constantly
TAKE IT TOO FUCKING FAR

The person who is currently
TAKING IT TOO FUCKING FAR
is you.

If there is no right or wrong answer, the whole discussion is completely futile and pointless anyway. We can only work based on our understanding of the world and our conception of others' equivalent understandings, if you see what I'm saying, which means that there is, in effect, a right or wrong answer.

Kicking kittens is clearly a cruel and unusual thing to do. Squashing insects is less so because they're far less intelligent and also because of the fact that our instincts generally lead us to feel uncomfortable around insects. It's what scientists reckon the sensation of tickling is meant to be used for, and it's there for a reason.

That violence meted out to one animal or species is wrong does not have to mean automatically that all violence is unthinkable. Yes, of course it is not very nice to kill insects. However, some violence is inherent in the Circle of Life and all that jazz. Kicking kittens does not fit into this. Again, this is something that you have Taken Too Far. Are you familiar with the concept of the slippery slope argument?

[deadeye]

don't feed the troll Lurk

I am no troll.

Whether it's emotional, moral outrage or an indifferent, logical attempt at justification for a morally outrageous act, all you really do around here is stir shit up.  You feign offense and argue indefensible points just for the sake of causing drama.  When confronted, you throw up your hands saying "oh hey, I'm not a troll, you guys started it, it's all your fault I'm like this."  Then you go back to posting like a normal person until the heat dies down, only to start all over again.

So yes, you are a troll.  You contribute nothing but negativity and drama to the community.  You suck.

And to everyone else... yeah, I said I would just ignore him and yeah, I said I really don't care any more, but god damn.  It's like every other thread I read now has Skofo in it somewhere being an ass.  This is getting way too fucking old.

[Derek]

Given his personal text, I'm pretty sure he saw this coming.

[deadeye]

HALLELUJAH

Thank you Derek.

[Valter]

I'm sure the internet is giving a collective sigh of relief right now, but I would still feel bad about partying right in front of his face after banning him. He was an asshole, and now he's banned. Let's just continue on with what we were doing, which in this case is discussing the morality of kicking cats.

[deadeye]

Let's discuss the morality of hugging cats, I think hugging cats is a good thing (I'm going to go hug my cat right now)

[Valter]

I'm at school right now, or else I would totally join you in your cat hugging.

MAKE A DIFFERENCE: HUG A CAT.

[policedanceclub]

YOU CAT HUGGING PERVERTS!

[skaldicpoet9]

[Valter]

It's not like that! I promise!

[aliwnfdsl]

Posting on behalf of Skofo (please don't reply directly back; this is a one-time gig):

I Like Cake: Nonsense, I do not have to take a stand on this, as I am a robot. aka I forfeit for the time being because I do not have the energy to debate with you and look up all of the fancy debater words you use, at the moment. Plus you kind of scared me when you argued about economics. But to answer your question simply: the treatment of beings is not a very meaningful moral issue to me, so it's hard for me to pinpoint exactly where I'd stand on this if I had to. Not hurting or killing anything, while a nice concept, is impossible because I consciously kill millions of things per day. However, hurting everything that gets in my way is useless and unfun to me. I occasionally save the occasional stray ant from the bathtub before I take a shower, but other times I'll kill a mosquito that's bugging me. I would hurt/kill anything if I felt that it threatened me or the things I enjoy or if I wanted to eat it. But I would not wish to be hurt or killed. I guess I'm hypocritical, but alas it's my nature. The point I was trying to make before is that since there is no universal right or wrong on hurting and killing other things, it is logically wrong to push your personal ethics based on your emotional reactions to stimuli on other people as the "better" ethics standing.

I shall debunk the two easier arguments quickly.

GeneralValter: Your definition of nature is different from mine. I believe that your definition is wrong. Humans are not an exception to nature. We have naturally evolved from presumably a bacterium until we naturally adopted the essential natural thought processes to develop tools and in the end naturally reproduce faster than any other mammal. Why is it that you think that organisms that more quickly reproduce than they die are considered not "natural" anymore? Are ants, wasps and plankton microscopic single-celled species considered not natural? Don't think that humans are somehow higher than nature, because they aren't.

Lurk: Okay. I know that you feel saddened when you see hurt or make hurt, you've told me that about a billion times already. I'm not saying you're wrong in your beliefs, I'm just saying that you're not right either.

Also, I do not think that I was rightfully banned. All I did was debate a point, and did not condescend anyone. I think that banning someone because you disagree with their standpoints is pretty immature.

[Renton]

I will not be talking about kittens.

psychopathy checklist

Factor1: Aggressive narcissism

    1. Glibness / superficial charm
    2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
✓  3. Pathological lying
✓  4. Cunning / manipulative
    5. Lack of remorse or guilt
    6. Shallow
✓  7. Callous / lack of empathy
✓  8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
    9. Promiscuous sexual behavior

Factor2: Socially deviant lifestyle

✓  1. Need for stimulation / proneness to boredom
    2. Parasitic lifestyle
✓  3. Poor behavioral control
✓  4. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
    5. Impulsivity
✓  6. Irresponsibility
    7. Juvenile delinquency
    8. Early behavior problems
    9. Revocation of conditional release

Am I a psychopath?

[Saker]

derek , u really suppressed HIS freedom of speech ....anyway .. that's good :D