an extremely sarcastic post of half WP users

Post Reply New Topic

Generally, laws and ideas of right and wrong, are not just religious terms.

People can rationalize all sorts of things, but in this they also can be hypocritical. People rationalize crimes against others, by making up reasons, just as you can do with anything if that is what your emotions drive you to. Humans are not neccessarily rational. Many simply follow their "hearts", etc, after basic instincts. Emotion is a powerful driving force. At the same time, emotion itself can also be a rational reason! Do we sit back and watch people die, to emotional pain, or do we act upon it, and feel better for doing the "right" and selfless thing?
Just as people use emotions to justify selfishness and actions which cause harm and emotional distress to another person, who has not previously done any harm to the aggressor. The agitator, who attacks another person at random, might not be sick in the head, but they certainly have disregard for the life of another, and emotion drives people to punish such criminals.

question everything, believe nothing!

No, right and wrong is a religious idea. Law isn't a religious term. This all goes back to the fundamental issues with the nature of morality or "oughtness" and its unprovability and even its removability via rationalist reduction.

Assuming an egoist naturalist position, it can be argued as so, however, that does not establish a universal idea of right but rather destroys most morality and states human society as having a fragmented nature as everyone has different emotional drives.

Well, that depends on where our emotions are guiding us. If we are the inflictors of pain then watching people die is the best end from our view. Really though, your position is that what is best is what man wants.

So, basically egoism attacks egoism, but right and wrong do not exist. Ok, I could attack egoism itself, but really given that egoism here could even be taken as tautological to mean all ends, I really don't care so much. You have killed right and wrong and made justice merely the interest of the stronger, so removing things is perhaps a waste of time because the system is practically nihilistic anyway.

Well? How do you know?

I shouldn't even dignify this with a response, technically on some god-like scale nothing is definate, but that's just taking s**t way too far. If your 5 senses tell you the computer is there, then for us, the computer is there.

Descartes saw doubting his own existence as a valid inquiry. Hence he produced "Cogito ergo sum." These are not meaningless questions just because you found an answer which you found satisfactory.

Says you. But law does define right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. It can do so from a religious or secular approach.

You keep referring to your arguments of 'oughtness' but I don't think you have persuaded anyone here.

Well then Descartes is a total ret*d. Because as for our reality, we do exist. We see, hear, feel, taste, and smell, and we experience, the world from what we CAN OBSERVE. I'm not talking about some god-like realm of super philosophy s**t that goes way above our understanding on what's around us. I can OBSERVE, that FOR OUR STATE/PLANE OF REALITY/EXISTENCE that I AM TYPING ON THIS COMPUTER, I CAN OBSERVE THAT TO ME AND OTHERS, I EXIST, THIS COMPUTER EXISTS. Therefore, i can conclude the same for other people and their computers and hince, hacking or sending a virus to someone's computer would be wrong, because I wouldn't like it if someone did that to me.

Tell me, Chuang Tzu, when you dream that you are a butterfly floating across a field, are you? It can seem very real at the time. And when you wake up and realize that being a butterfly was just a dream, how do you know that the human part is real, and not another nested dream??

Your missing the point, if I am a butterfly in a dream, then in that dream I will live as a butterfly, because in that dream the reality is that I am a butterfly. In our human realm, the reality is that I am a human. This relativity s**t it ret*d.

I mean your delving into "what ifs" to justify ignorance of what IS real, according to our perception here (ie the perception we actually live in).

Well, I haven't seen anyone here say that everything is a dream, therefore, Auschwitz was ok. Clearly, according to the currently agreed upon schema, it was horrendously evil.

Weren't you the guy pushing the 'matrix thing' where what everyone thinks is real is an illusion ??

Yes. Descartes was a moron.
Thinking like that led to things like the epistemic standards of science.

And absolutely the observation of human beings as being empirically similar to myself implies nothing about their internal reality; see the thought experiment known as "p-zombies".

Twoshots, your missing one important thing here, so I'll repeat what I posted:

Your missing the point, if I am a butterfly in a dream, then in that dream I will live as a butterfly, **because IN THAT DREAM the reality is that I am a butterfly**. In our human realm, the reality is that I am a human. This relativity sh** it ret*d.

Even if our reality is a dream, we live in this dream, so to us it is not a dream, it's real. Repeat: Even if our reality is a dream, we live in this dream, so to us it is not a dream, it's real

Yes I do believe our world is a matrix, but not to the extent that we should treat physical objects as if they don't really exist in our plane of existence. I am certain that my computer and I both physically exist, at least on my plane of existence, which is all that matters to me. Why would some alternate plane of reality mean s**t in this plane of reality? I mean, even if this were a dream state? And I have no knowledge or evidence of any other plane of reality.
What I was talking about being unreal were systems, the money system, religion, political ideology, things that ultimately controls peoples' minds and keeps people from asking rational questions. I never argued that we should pretend any of these things do not exist --to us-- (even if our reality were a dream, to us it's reality), I just argued that they are systems of individual supression and complacency.

Actually I have wondered for some time what would be the moral nihilist or amorality or moral skepticism -if you will- view on this issue, related to child molestation and pornography. Yes, a great number of people say it is wrong, now, the people who adhere to those philosophies, what are their thoughts on it? Wondering.