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 - Tsirist
451
« on: September 29, 2015, 12:09:33 PM »
452
« on: September 29, 2015, 01:22:38 AM »
tbh i still haven't spent much time here and my recollection of you on B.net was negative (don't really remember the specifics of why), but since being around here your posts have been interesting and in this video you remind me of a lot of good people i've known. cool idea and cheers
453
« on: September 28, 2015, 11:43:33 AM »
Personally I love the "economics is a zero-sum game" meme.
How is that relevant to the discussion at all?
Well it was shortly after OP tried to get the thread back on track. I kinda wanted to jokingly remark on the stance that neither of his presented options would be acceptable. I don't hold that view but I posted the zero-sum remark specifically in response to this: Secondly, you cannot manipulate one side of an equation and expect that the other side won't balance it out. That's why it's an "equation." Of course, he could have been talking about any short-term economic phenomena to which that generally applies, but tbh I get tired of hearing high school economics lectures and generalizations from people who do not specialize in its study. Of course, he later went on to make the following statement, which from his assertion that the "sides" will balance out, doesn't make much sense at all: Making rich people less rich doesn't help me at all. Well, unless he's rich himself.
454
« on: September 27, 2015, 05:07:04 PM »
In your dreams bruh. Any method for serving dynamic content trumps static. Angular ftw.
What the fuck is this fool talking about
i mean it's cool just serving it up all at once but tbh i don't like having loads in between for small operations. better to have that done dynamically, y'know? i feel like most people feel this way so i'm not really sure what you're on about
Bitch I'll body slam your operations
you'll body slam my load times is what you'll do fuck dat
455
« on: September 27, 2015, 05:00:53 PM »
dude can you put all your bait in one post
Dude would you like me to just pay for your life directly so your don't even have to go through welfare?
I volunteer as tribute! i-if you're offering, that is
456
« on: September 27, 2015, 05:00:18 PM »
In your dreams bruh. Any method for serving dynamic content trumps static. Angular ftw.
What the fuck is this fool talking about
i mean it's cool just serving it up all at once but tbh i don't like having loads in between for small operations. better to have that done dynamically, y'know? i feel like most people feel this way so i'm not really sure what you're on about
457
« on: September 27, 2015, 03:58:50 PM »
In your dreams bruh. Any method for serving dynamic content trumps static. Angular ftw.
458
« on: September 27, 2015, 03:54:05 PM »
Personally I love the "economics is a zero-sum game" meme.
459
« on: September 27, 2015, 02:57:12 PM »
Minimum wage can't even sustain one person enough to afford rent, car payments, food, other bills, etc. without any form of other financial support i.e. Food stamps, a second job, etc...
So don't live on your own. That's a goddamn luxury, not a right.
I love this mentality because it blames everyone else for problems they may never have had the opportunity to understand. You may find it easy to understand this, but in the end people are just state machines influenced by their design and environment. Want even more problems? Ignore the problem of poor people reproducing/having families in spite of your proclamations, and watch how their children grow to do the same.
460
« on: September 27, 2015, 02:08:25 PM »
The people are the state. I'm not really sure what you mean by this presupposition.
I just kinda meant it as a nebulous observation that oftentimes the people are said to have power over the state. Sometimes it's the other way around, and the abstractions used are sometimes conflicting/overlapping, but I just mean that in the case of America (which I assumed was the state in question), it is often said that the people give the state power. Although I guess this is not often the perspective on the conservative side where the fear is that the state is constantly trying to gain a better position over the people. Nevertheless, I mean that the population at large, especially these days, often has a great deal of sway over the arrangement of the hierarchy. Papers and theories and social structures aside, if the masses want something to change, it will be made to change.
461
« on: September 27, 2015, 01:05:02 PM »
I honestly think people should be taking more individual responsibility instead of automatically expecting the state to intervene.
Don't want to put in the effort for an affluent lifestyle and just want to live a moderately comfortable existence? That's fine. Just don't expect an exuberant standard of living for yourself, and if it wasn't blindingly obvious for anyone else, don't have children if you don't think you can adequately support them.
The people are the state. They can hope the state will automatically intervene but the state (i.e. the people) has to want it. It's not irrational to expect the state to do something about it when it CAN do something about it. Consider that the ultimate form of personal responsibility for one's state derives from a perfectly equal society in which the beginning states of all people are equivalent and only their choices determine where they end up. The polar opposite is one in which anarchy/hypercapitalism/feudalism/autocracy reigns and a "natural system" with some sort of aggressive hierarchy emerges that puts certain people at a disadvantage from the beginning. The sentiments of the people that draw us away from such systems are themselves natural responses to having so many people being poorly educated and miserable while the affluent make the big decisions that influence everybody at the bottom.
462
« on: September 27, 2015, 12:26:07 PM »
463
« on: September 26, 2015, 09:03:48 PM »
I don't think it's fair to compare those two when one is leaving someone in a state of misery and the other is putting them in a state in which it is [seemingly] impossible for them to [humanly] experience negative [human] emotions.
edited appropriately
GET YOUR SPIRITUALISM OFF MY BOARD
REEEEEEEEE
spiritualism? just an awareness of the extent of my ignorance and even the extent to which i am not aware of my own ignorance
464
« on: September 26, 2015, 08:43:48 PM »
I don't think it's fair to compare those two when one is leaving someone in a state of misery and the other is putting them in a state in which it is [seemingly] impossible for them to [humanly] experience negative [human] emotions.
edited appropriately
465
« on: September 26, 2015, 02:45:06 PM »
Because when dealing on the behalf of other parties, you are responsible for negative outcomes that happen. Your assessment of the risk may appear more rational and work on aggregate, but if the negative result occurs, you have no response to those who suffered as a result of your choice.
It's not like I even said that you are wrong in thinking that shelter is the preferred option. You are right it probably is, but that doesn't make other solutions wrong when there is no longer any entities to even possibly feel the negative effects of the choice.
Usually such a response would be like, "I'm sorry this had to happen to you. Yes, it is my fault that this happened. What can I do to help you now? Why did I do it? Because on aggregate it creates a net positive by helping more people than it hurts, and the net result is good." This explanation tends to suffice because it aligns with most folks' moral principles. And I think Winy operates under a pretty typical moral system that selects among options and designates the most net positive outcome as the "right" course of action and the others as "less right" or even "wrong", which is the typical purpose of a moral system. Are they absolutely right and wrong? No, but you should consider his moral system before trying to convince him of the results of your own. Your ethical arguments were relevant because when a moral difference arises the debate tends to shift to the inspection of the processes used to reach the moral conclusions, but it should be obvious to you just from typical public opinion as well as Winy's posts that he doesn't operate under the moral principles that death is doing no harm and that the slightest harm resulting from a process invalidates the larger gains made from it.
466
« on: September 26, 2015, 02:09:47 PM »
nature of a metaphysical phenomenon (death)
uwot
Physical phenomena are a subset of metaphysical phenomena. This should follow clearly from their definitions lol. Considering the "experience" of being dead is not consistent with the making of empirical observations as far as we know, we cannot deduce what its metaphysical implications are for the one who "experiences" it. We might be able to make some guesses as to the physical implications (loss of human memory, human sense perceptions, human rationality, etc.) but beyond that we cannot know.
467
« on: September 26, 2015, 02:05:33 PM »
Egg also does not like considering the metaphysical implications of death ("Death is simply a no-risk alternative").
And as I told you last night, it is entirely pointless to take moral arguments to a metaphysical level because the metaphysical level revokes any sense of authority.
And, funnily enough, I'm the one taking a morally relativistic stance here, whilst others are making absolute statements of what is and is not a correct action.
Yeah, yours isn't presented as an absolute position. But you're still making empiricist assertions about the nature of a metaphysical phenomenon (death). Which is, again, as entirely pointless as you point out. :^)
468
« on: September 26, 2015, 02:01:51 PM »
Egg also does not like considering any possible metaphysical implications of death ("Death is simply a no-risk alternative").
469
« on: September 26, 2015, 01:50:45 PM »
Probability dictates the puppies will likely find suitable homes which, as Turkey said, is obviously better than them being dead.
Egg's personal belief is that being dead, while not necessarily a good thing, isn't a bad one. Egg places a lot of value in this notion. You will simply have to agree to disagree if you take issue (as I think many do) with the idea of killing being OK because death isn't bad.
470
« on: September 24, 2015, 08:00:26 PM »
I seriously can't comprehend people that prioritize social issues over economic issues.
Like wtf
There's certainly a balance to be struck, but in my case, I realize that I am not a good enough expert on economics, foreign policy, and the like to necessarily be able to identify the best candidate. I can guess, but on the practical/economic stuff, I cannot be sure. On the moral and social stuff though? I am far more certain, and something that concerns me greatly is how people who hold certain social opinions (that I may believe to be downright injustices) can possibly rationalize their positions. It discredits, to some extent, the rest of their positions. And causes me to question the process they would use for formulating perspectives on new problematic issues. But that's just for me.
471
« on: September 24, 2015, 07:35:17 PM »
I would think it has.
This seems to conflict with the relativist position, though. If morality isn't objective, the very idea of "moral progress" is moot, isn't it? If that's what you believe, then we as a society today are no more "moral" than we were back when the slave trade was still going on. That is what you must concede if you are a moral relativist. There can be no moral progress, because that implies a progression towards something greater.
Personally, I think that notion is asinine. A more accurate statement would be that you wanted to do it. You had a desire to do something, and you did it.
From there, I can ask why you wanted to do it, and so on.
This has nothing to do with my moralistic beliefs. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. I think when people agree that there has been moral progress, it is based on the perception that our society is better now than it was in the past. For whatever reason, the current morals of society are more beneficial to us now than they were previously. This isn't to say that they are objectively better; it is merely to say that it works better for us. Hence, we call it progress, even if it is potentially contrary to the objective morality that we cannot know. Similarly, when people say they did something "because they could", you are right, the fact that they could didn't necessarily cause them to take that action. But the fact that they could instilled the desire in them to do it. When people say that, it is simply to say that they could think of no reason not to do it, and that their curiosity or some other emotional desire had a response to the notion that motivated them to execute the action. In both cases I think we just have an issue of semantics. It is possible to note that people act morally relativistically to each other and still have those people declare that society is making moral progress. On the latter issue, I have to admit that I didn't think someone could take issue with that phrasing just because it isn't literal enough. Well, this very topic has been discussed numerous times over the past couple weeks, and I've found that the easiest way to grasp my position is that morality is "subjectively objective". In short--an objective truth is out there, and we can never fully grasp it, but we can do our best. That's really it.
I can accept that. It doesn't work for me personally, but at this point in the conversation I am comfortable with what you have said, now that things are more clear.
472
« on: September 24, 2015, 07:01:02 PM »
I'm speaking in ontological terms, though. Epistemologically, sure, our interpretations of how the physical world functions could be considered relative, but unless you're some kind of solipsist, I think it would be silly to argue that there isn't an objective interpretation somewhere in the ether. We, as fallible humans, simply lack the sophistication required to glean the exactitude of such an interpretation.
Now, of course, I would argue that the same could be said of morality. We unearth these moral truths just as we unearth physics, and perhaps we'll never be able to realize the full extent of either, but we can make educated guesses.
Would you agree that we've made moral progress over the years?
I do consider myself a solipsist, but honestly I don't think that is relevant. As far as I'm concerned, the nature of the human being makes it impossible to identify an object interpretation or to distinguish one from such an ether. Perhaps, yes, if we were more sophisticated somehow, some conclusion could be reasonably reached, but I cannot fathom what such an evolution would like like. As humans exist right now, they are capable of having different perspectives. Morality exists as a guide to the behavior that they should exhibit, but it can be modified in the case of any individual. This quite literally embodies the idea of relativism among humans. Beyond humans? Sure, maybe. But that is a matter of faith. In light of this, I would say that, as the trend morally as been towards a system of morals that I agree with, that yes, we have made moral progress over the years. Has it been trending towards objective morality though? Hell if I know. Ultimately I can understand wanting to take an ontological perspective of some sort but I believe you need to qualify your statements appropriately; you are quite a silly ethicist to declare, in response to others who want to discuss your moral positions, yourself so far above moral relativists' perspectives on no other basis than that you are an objectivist. I take issue with you saying that people should not do something "just because they can" and then defending that claim by stating "according to the objective morality I believe to be out there, but that you and I do not know, it is wrong to do something just because you can without making ethical considerations". If I understood your earlier posts in this thread correctly, of course. Again, I have no problem with you having faith in such a thing, but ignoring the fact that morality is relative among humans and then making a moral claim that would have to be considered against the objective morality you know nothing about doesn't work. [edit:] Gotta shower, I'll be back.
473
« on: September 24, 2015, 06:37:24 PM »
Different conclusions from different methodology or premises.
The key being to identify the best premise, as we do in science.
How do we identify the best premises? How do we account for people who accept as best different premises from us?
474
« on: September 24, 2015, 06:32:35 PM »
however, there are many who would disagree with you, for one reason or another.
So we should consider the existence of non-empiricists and non-physicalists when we approach science as to make it relative?
Not at all! Yet there clearly are people who do. I don't believe we should consider those practices as good practices, yet people make wild scientific claims about vaccines, circumcision (apparently), climate change, and other things all the time, even if they're not scientifically trained. Some scientists, again, don't even reach the same conclusions as others. This is the same in ethics. Different conclusions from different methodology or premises. The process is clearly not objective, otherwise the same conclusion would be reached. Again, neither methodology is a natural construct anyways; they are artificial, human abstractions used for useful purposes, but nothing more.
475
« on: September 24, 2015, 06:24:52 PM »
If the objectivist position is true, no, it does not necessarily follow that the moral system inherent would be universally known.
I'm sure we can agree that science is objective, not relative. Yet we debate it, all the time.
I understand where you're coming from with that. Sure, a "correct" morality may exist somehow, and we may not know what it is. But if you do not know what it is, or know that it does, in fact, exist, how can you make any claims to morality at all that are not contextually subjective or relativist? I think you are confused about the difference between nature and the human study of nature. Morality COULD be objective, but ethics is not a human system of morals and is not morally objective. The laws of the universe seem to be objective for sure, but science is not a natural system of laws and is not universally objective. Note that I am not saying that the conclusions made by science are not objectively true as far as we can tell. I am simply stating that science could be done differently. In fact, science is debated so frequently because it is NOT objective, although it attempts to make objective conclusions. Scientists strive to make these objective conclusions but science gets debated because there are sometimes "bad" scientists.
476
« on: September 24, 2015, 06:02:22 PM »
The existence of sentient creatures who have the capacity to feel pain and experience suffering begets a system of ethics from which we can derive moral truths (ie. sentient beings ought not suffer gratuitously).
Well, the suffering of any creature, sentient or not, tends to beget a system of morality, but ethics as a study of human morality is a purely rational construct used to relate systems of morality to one another, as well as to analyze them. Ethics itself is logical; it depends on the application of rules to axioms and premises, as I'm sure you're aware. But these axioms and premises have to come from somewhere, and they are typically designated to be that which is self-evident. What you specify, that harm ought not to be inflicted gratuitously, is a commonly accepted beginning point; however, there are many who would disagree with you, for one reason or another. From that difference in axioms they proceed with the rational ethical process differently from you. How is this not moral relativism in action? Because it's the only one that sings logically. It's the only one I've been able to think of that makes any rational sense. You can argue that others might disagree--but that's why we debate. If morality were subjective, it would be pointless to debate it.
And indeed we do debate it. However, I believe you have it backwards: if there were an objectively correct moral system, there would hardly be any need for ethics, as ethics would serve no purpose and there would be nothing to study or debate. It would be universally true and objectively known that that moral system was correct. Yet this is not the case. Instead, the fact that we are debating this suggests that moral relativism is indeed reflective of the nature of the world.
477
« on: September 24, 2015, 05:46:50 PM »
Cultural relativism is so fucking retarded.
As a moral objectivist, it is not my job to tell you who is "right" in these scenarios.
My inability to do so does not preclude the existence of moral facts.
My experience with the types of moral objectivism is limited and it's been a while since I studied any of them for one reason or another. If you are unable to identify any moral facts, that distinguishes you as being morally agnostic; however, does being in this state not, in itself, essentially require you to function as a moral relativist?
How do you mean "function" as a moral relativist?
Are you not unable to make any assertions whatsoever as to what is moral and immoral? Or otherwise, if you are, then from whence do you derive your morals, and given what you have stated ("My inability to do so does not preclude the existence of moral facts."), how do know these to be the objectively/universally correct morals?
478
« on: September 24, 2015, 05:40:35 PM »
Cultural relativism is so fucking retarded.
As a moral objectivist, it is not my job to tell you who is "right" in these scenarios.
My inability to do so does not preclude the existence of moral facts.
My experience with the types of moral objectivism is limited and it's been a while since I studied any of them for one reason or another. If you are unable to identify any moral facts, that distinguishes you as being morally agnostic; however, does being in this state not, in itself, essentially require you to function as a moral relativist?
479
« on: September 24, 2015, 05:06:30 PM »
the fact that i'm a completely average person in every way imaginable
aside from being on the luckier end with circumstantial stuff (where i was born, socioeconomic status of family, etc.)
480
« on: September 24, 2015, 01:39:13 PM »
|
Show Posts
