This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 346347348 349350 ... 502
10411
« on: December 07, 2014, 01:26:02 PM »
The conservative in me applauds this.
The libertarian in me despises it.
10412
« on: December 07, 2014, 01:23:30 PM »
I see this thread has simply ended up going in circles.
Questions of morality tend to do that.
It's a question of integrity. Not morality.
10413
« on: December 07, 2014, 12:24:00 PM »
The government is creating artificial scarcity in order to make California more reliant on the federal government.
10414
« on: December 07, 2014, 11:48:23 AM »
That's a horrible reason to be glad about an attack.
I've never claimed to be a nice person.
10415
« on: December 07, 2014, 11:26:03 AM »
... Why?
Just because it's furries.
10416
« on: December 07, 2014, 11:13:54 AM »
I'm glad this happened.
10417
« on: December 06, 2014, 04:55:57 PM »
You don't need any.
So, it is really a matter of convenience then.
10418
« on: December 06, 2014, 04:41:42 PM »
But I do pursue that work. I volunteer a lot. And I plan to do a lot more once I have the money.
How much money do you need to volunteer with an aid organisation?
10419
« on: December 06, 2014, 04:20:27 PM »
And why can't it be both? I would if I could. And i can't. I'm not going to do what he did because that obviously didn't work out too well for him or anyone else.
Stopping the suffering of others - or the profiting off thereof - is either a matter of principle to be absolutely attended to, or an interest of convenience to be attended to when you feel like it. If you claim that you'd help the child, but won't pursue such work in our world - it's a matter of convenience, not morality. It's something to be done wherever it doesn't conflict with other pursuits and interests. If you're going to try to paint it as a matter of principle - that a society profiting off the misfortune of others is absolutely immoral - then you're a hypocrite. You can't have it both ways.
10420
« on: December 06, 2014, 04:05:16 PM »
I don't resources or the opportunity or anything necessary to stop it.
That's obviously not true. Alan Henning, the taxi-driver beheaded by ISIS, went with a volunteer aid group. You don't need resources to make an effort. You have two choices. You either admit to yourself that it's a matter of convenience, not principle. Or you sign up and do something.
10421
« on: December 06, 2014, 04:00:18 PM »
And that's not okay.
If you claim you'd save the child, you should be doing something about it then.
10422
« on: December 06, 2014, 03:36:34 PM »
You do know how they do that, right?
The point being they do it while authoritarian. I'm not saying they love seditious opinions and tolerate dissent.
10423
« on: December 06, 2014, 03:29:20 PM »
But there are far worse.
That's no excuse. I'm not talking exclusively about child labour. The fact that there is a spectrum, or gradation, of suffering doesn't excuse inaction. Like I say, if people are saying they'd save the child and forsake the city on principle then they should be out there, doing something about the suffering in the world. If a taxi driver can go to Syria and, unfortunately, fall hands to ISIS in his efforts then he is living proof that I) an effort can be made and II) more effort should be made. You don't ignore the cancer because you have a stab wound.
10424
« on: December 06, 2014, 03:23:20 PM »
Due to the lovely issue of sovereignty, that is, unfortunately, unavoidable.
Not entirely. While I believe the current set-up - though unfortunate - is better, it seems a lot of people here are invariably opposed to profiting from destitution on principle. Given that this is the case, I'd be interested to know why these people aren't conducting aid missions. Unless, of course, the value of their personal labour exceeds the value of stopping suffering. Then it's about expediency, not principles or morals.
10425
« on: December 06, 2014, 03:05:12 PM »
And in that way they don't deserve to have a utopia if they let the child suffer like that.
You mean in the same way people in the West profit off child labour and sweatshops?
10426
« on: December 06, 2014, 02:27:01 PM »
If this "utopia" requires the suffering of an innocent, it isn't a utopia.
I've dealt with this two or three times by now. You're missing the point if you're caught up in the semantics.
10427
« on: December 06, 2014, 01:21:49 PM »
Which would it be?
It seems to me that most fictional governments (especially science fiction) are either corrupt, incompetent or authoritarian. 1984, Brave New World, the UNSC, the Ministry of Magic, ARM in Known Space, the Galactic Empire, China's communist government, the Protheans from Mass Effect, the Tau - all fictional and all authoritarian, for better or for worse.
So, if you know of any liberal/libertarian governments in fiction which you'd like to live under - name them. However, I'd also like you to choose from among the more undesirable fictional regimes you know.
I'd probably choose the government in Brave New World, or the Tau, if I had to. Both seem to keep their populations particularly content, instead of fearful.
10428
« on: December 06, 2014, 11:36:39 AM »
If you think society should be taken down because suffering exists, that makes you an antinatalist.
you just fucking #buttrekt everybody who chose the kid
10429
« on: December 06, 2014, 11:33:31 AM »
Of course they do. I certainly would.
10430
« on: December 06, 2014, 08:22:53 AM »
Do you want me to answer as a politician or a citizen?
10431
« on: December 05, 2014, 03:44:15 PM »
I tend to think that economic liberties are more important than social ones.
Also, let's add civic and political liberties to the equation too. If I had to rank them, it'd probably go:
- Economic
- Civic
- Social
- Political
10432
« on: December 05, 2014, 03:01:25 PM »
necro
10433
« on: December 05, 2014, 02:49:53 PM »
I'm beginning to think utilitarian ethics aren't all they're cut out to be, maybe I'm just dumb.
To be absolutely perfectly honest, consequentialism necessitates utilitarianism. Consequentialism, also, is the only foundation for moral thinking. The problem with utilitarianism is when you try and make it mathematical, as Jeremy Bentham did. Then it becomes, quite literally, autistic.
10434
« on: December 05, 2014, 02:48:09 PM »
I made a similar thread not too long ago about the rise of antiheroes and people rooting for the villains - which I'm sure has a lot to do with aesthetics. While I'm sure it says more about me than anything else that I, quite literally, almost always root for the baddies or, given the situation, antiheroes - Underwood, Dexter, Moriarty, Sidious, Raoul Silva, et cetera.
However, it's not just rooting for them for aesthetic purposes. I literally hold them in higher regard than their opponents; I respect them more. I relate to them more. While this may not be the case with all of those listed, I know that everybody who has seen House of Cards and enjoys it utterly respects Frank Underwood, despite the fact the man is a ruthless, manipulative, power-hungry psychopath.
So, why is this? Do we respect power and pragmatism? Is their something in the ruthlessness of psychopaths, and their sheer detachment, that we find admirable?
10435
« on: December 05, 2014, 02:40:19 PM »
Assuming a utopia is defined as 1, this hypothetical world lies at 0.9 recurring. m8
._____.
I know that it'd be equal to 1. You know what I fucking mean.
10436
« on: December 05, 2014, 02:22:20 PM »
What a delicate situation this hypothetical world is in. It clearly wasn't a Utopia in the first place if taking care of an impoverished child has sent this world to hell.
I've already dealt with the semantics. Trying to paint it as "not really a utopia" doesn't change the behavioural realities of this hypothetical world. You could call it a dystopia, if you want but the equilibrium remains the same.
10437
« on: December 05, 2014, 02:17:37 PM »
And I find your position to be as well.
You see why we are polar opposites.
To me this really highlights the distinction between liberals and conservatives/libertarians. While we generally place our stock into civil liberties, you do so in the prevention of suffering and unfairness. In this instance, whereby you'd expect a conservative/libertarian to decry it and a liberal to support it, it has been switched. The presence of suffering has turned liberals largely against the idea, whereas the preservation of order and sanctity has turned conservatives in its support.
10438
« on: December 05, 2014, 02:07:26 PM »
Yes
I find that to be, quite seriously, irrational.
10439
« on: December 05, 2014, 02:01:53 PM »
Didn't say the new civilization would be a utopia, nor should it be. We'd only end up in the start once again.
So you'd destroy a utopia for the sake of a single suffering individual?
10440
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:59:07 PM »
The child is timeless and kept in eternal torment.
Pages: 1 ... 346347348 349350 ... 502
|
Show Posts