Show Posts

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 ... 307308309 310311 ... 502
9241
The Flood / Re: Is Anarchy up?
« on: January 01, 2015, 04:05:16 PM »
What is nameplate
Hover over the profile tab on the upper right corner and you will see a list of choices. Click nameplate and find the one required for Anarchy
What's it called?

9242
Serious / Re: Democracy/Republic v Theocracy
« on: January 01, 2015, 04:02:17 PM »
A Democracy is different, as it employs the majority of the populace to rule and thus a rule by majority
Well that's just not true since we don't have a constitutional form of democracy, yet we have parliamentary sovereignty.

If you vote for your representatives, you're a representative democracy; there really is no two ways about it. The problem seems to be Americans have a habit of conflating direct democracy with democracy altogether, when really since the time of Burke the representative democracy has been the greater force.

 

9243
Septagon / CHEAT, WHY THE FUCK CAN'T I SEE ANARCHY?
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:51:20 PM »
SORT IT OOT

9244
The Flood / Re: >he thinks countries can't be Democratic AND Republican
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:49:32 PM »
huh?
Kinder keeps acting like republics can't be democracies, and vice versa.

9245
The Flood / Re: >he thinks countries can't be Democratic AND Republican
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:47:44 PM »
I thought you were going to make a decent point about how republicanism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, but you ruined it by including a country which is neither a republic nor a democracy.

9246
The Flood / Is Anarchy up?
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:46:04 PM »
Because I can't fucking see it.

9247
Serious / Re: Yes, objective morality exists
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:41:55 PM »

Holy shit, reading that one guy's article on Nietzsche makes me want to punch a fucking wall.

9248
Serious / Re: Yes, objective morality exists
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:17:11 PM »
I remember reading something from him where he lists off philosophical words and characterizes them as "boredom inducing" before he makes his points. I was like "yeah w/e"
hue

What's the book?

9249
The Flood / LEUKEMIA?
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:10:18 PM »


qeq

9250
Serious / Re: Yes, objective morality exists
« on: January 01, 2015, 02:57:55 PM »
Okay now how about a tl;dr
>morality necessarily relates to the flourishing and well-being of conscious creatures
>therefore questions about morality have objectively correct or incorrect answers

9251
Serious / Re: Yes, objective morality exists
« on: January 01, 2015, 02:52:28 PM »
I'll watch it later when I'm in the mood, but I can get a tl;dw pls
Quote
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a book by Sam Harris. In it, he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (e.g. moral relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given by God and scripture. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.

Challenging the age-old philosophical notion that we can never get an 'ought' from an 'is', Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using, not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, "science can determine human values" translates to "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing". It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of "morality".

9252
Serious / Re: Yes, objective morality exists
« on: January 01, 2015, 02:50:23 PM »

It seems like you've actually been looking at the mischaracterisations of his work, and too closely associating it with a Benthamite conception of utilitarianism.

The basis of his consequentialist utilitarianism (loosely defined) is that there is no other position to operate from when considering morality, first and foremost because nobody would sanely advocate a system of morality which resulted in abject destitution.

The problems with quantifying the extent to which an action is, of course, difficult but it doesn't make the idea vacuous. There are quite obviously peaks and troughs on this "moral landscape" at which one can operate, and as soon as one accepts this then it is quite obvious that we can rule out the Taliban as having anything meaningful to say about morality, in the same sense they have nothing meaningful to say about physics.

Just think about economics; simply because it's a very nebulous area of study, it doesn't negate the idea of varying degrees of rightness and wrongness.

Spoiler
I have no idea what you mean by him "acting too good for philosophy", either.

9253
Serious / Re: Democracy/Republic v Theocracy
« on: January 01, 2015, 01:33:17 PM »
Also the two smartest people on the forum believe in god (Turkey anf Goji), so there's definitely some truth to behind creationism
Goji isn't religious. . .

9254
Serious / Re: Democracy/Republic v Theocracy
« on: January 01, 2015, 12:31:25 PM »
>putting democracy and republic in the same category
>implying you can't have both at the same time

America is both a democracy and a republic. In fact, most republics are democracies (I can't think of a single on which isn't).
Isn't it indirective democracy (Swe-term for it)? You elect people that stand for what you want, and then they get all of the power and make your decisions for you. Isn't that what being republic is about?
Quote
republic
rɪˈpʌblɪk/Submit
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
If it's true, then it is by definition a democracy.
We'd call that a representative democracy, which is originally what republicanism was about (according to the Founding Fathers). However, representative democracies can co-exist with constitutional monarchies, as it does in my country.

Republicanism, nowadays, is just having an elected head of state.

9255
Serious / Yes, objective morality exists
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:50:11 AM »
YouTube


#rekt by harris

9256
Serious / Re: Democracy/Republic v Theocracy
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:21:16 AM »
>putting democracy and republic in the same category
>implying you can't have both at the same time

America is both a democracy and a republic. In fact, most republics are democracies (I can't think of a single on which isn't).

9257
Serious / Re: More of a question for Psy
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:20:24 AM »
I think Hitler's hatred for the Jews was more to do with the general level of antisemitism (largely a result of Christian authority and tradition) within society at the time, and the fact Hitler was a psychopath just looking for a political scapegoat.

Considering some Jews were made honorary Nazis, and he commented that it was a "shame" some talented actress or singer (I forget) was a Jew, I don't think he actually cared all that much about them insofar as they became irrelevant to his aspirations.

9258
The Flood / Re: Describe your experience this year in a word or sentence.
« on: January 01, 2015, 06:42:55 AM »
Early in the new year, I saw a really fucking stupid thread with the really fucking stupid condition of "in a word or sentence".

9259
Serious / Re: Democracy/Republic v Theocracy
« on: January 01, 2015, 06:36:08 AM »
First of all that's not a direct democracy.

Second of all that's not a theocracy.

9260
Serious / Re: Palestine to join the International Criminal Court
« on: December 31, 2014, 02:02:26 PM »
Palestinian Authority is legitimate.

Hamas, in Gaza, is a terrorist organisation and ought to be crushed under Israel's boot.

9261
Serious / Re: 19-year-old British man arrested for burning a Qur'an
« on: December 31, 2014, 02:00:05 PM »
"Oh no freedom of speech!"

>posts on forum where you don't have freedom of speech
Private entities aren't obligate to facilitate your speech. This forum is privately owned.

9262
Serious / Should incitement to violence/hatred be a punishable offence?
« on: December 31, 2014, 12:35:45 PM »
I'm really, really stuck on this one.

9263
Serious / Re: European societies do not value the individual
« on: December 31, 2014, 12:30:58 PM »
>prohibition
>new deal
>alien and sedition acts
>oppression of quakers during the revolution

sorry wot

9264
Serious / Re: 19-year-old British man arrested for burning a Qur'an
« on: December 31, 2014, 12:26:23 PM »
if it wasn't a Quran you would be singing a different tune.
If it wasn't a Quran we wouldn't be talking about it, because it wouldn't have been a criminal offense.
Even though it's still a criminal offense to burn things like poppies?
Is that why all the Muslims burning poppies during Remembrance Day were arrested? owait

The point is, even assuming it is an offence, it shouldn't be.

9265
Serious / Re: 19-year-old British man arrested for burning a Qur'an
« on: December 31, 2014, 10:41:17 AM »
if it wasn't a Quran you would be singing a different tune.
Um, why? What makes you think I have any more respect for any holy book of any faith?

People can burn and tear apart whatever book they damn well please, so long as its their own property. And they shouldn't have to face threats or arrests for doing so.

EDIT: You're actually right in a way, if it wasn't a Qur'an I wouldn't be singing a tune at all. Somebody burning a Bible in this country isn't going to face voluminous death threats, let alone arrest. I wouldn't have the opportunity to sing a tune.

9266
Serious / Re: 19-year-old British man arrested for burning a Qur'an
« on: December 31, 2014, 10:40:06 AM »

9267
Serious / Re: 19-year-old British man arrested for burning a Qur'an
« on: December 31, 2014, 08:54:41 AM »
Wait, was he arrested for his own safety or because bongs don't have free speech?
Both, essentially.

9268
The Flood / Re: Alright Jim, Verbatim
« on: December 31, 2014, 08:11:23 AM »
4.

9269
Serious / 19-year-old British man arrested for burning a Qur'an
« on: December 31, 2014, 05:26:38 AM »
Fucking nanny statist cunts.
Quote
A 19-year-old from Leeds, West Yorkshire, who was arrested in connection with an offensive video he posted on a social media website has been released on bail.

A video, which was shared to the Yorkshire Standard, showed a man ripping apart an English translation of the Koran with his teeth and putting it in the toilet before burning it.

The police arrested the suspect on 27 December after people raised concerns for the safety of the person who had posted the video up following a number of public comments made in response to it.

People also called the police complaining about the offensive nature of the video.

The suspect was arrested from an address in Beeston, Leeds, on suspicion of a racially or religiously aggravated public order offence.

Superintendent Mabs Hussain, of Leeds District Police, said: “Due to the nature of this offence, any decision to charge must be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are currently preparing an advice file which we will be submitting to the Crown Prosecution Service in due course. In the meantime the arrested man has been released on bail to an alternative location.

“We are aware of strong feelings expressed by a number of people in response to this video. We would again urge people to allow this investigation to run its course and remind members of the public that we will take robust action against anyone who acts outside of the law.”

The Yorkshire Standard was notified by various members of the public about the video.

The site also received links to the video and it had been shared at least over 1,000 times and had over 100 comments – some included death threats.

It was removed from the account a day after the arrest.

The police were contacted by the Yorkshire Standard for a clarification on whether the man did rip the Koran, put it in a toilet and burn it. The police refused to confirm or go into detail. The video was deemed as an offensive video.

9270
Serious / Re: Peter Hitchens is such a loathesome little worm.
« on: December 31, 2014, 03:48:20 AM »
What exactly are Peter's qualifications? Is he a politician or is he an expert in the field?
He's a, so-called, "journalist".

Pages: 1 ... 307308309 310311 ... 502