The Everlasting CCCP !

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Hercules
Thank heavens these philosophy tutorials take place here and not in other threads.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Hercules...
Thank heavens these philosophy tutorials take place here and not in other threads.
Originally posted by Cedayon...
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

Does that mean you like reading all this bumpf? I had no idea it was a spectator sport. Come on, roll up your sleeves and wade in. I mean, everyone's got an opinion, even Archaic

-Jam

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by War of Art Does that mean you like reading all this bumpf?

No, it means I'm glad it's confined to this thread so I don't have to read it everywhere else

Come on, roll up your sleeves and wade in.

My observation has told me that the potential benefit is insufficient for the time investment and likely grief.

I mean, everyone's got an opinion, even Archaic

I thought the CCCP had another word for what Archaic has

[Jamski]

Yes, but its unsupportable using a rational argument

-Jam

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Cedayon
I thought the CCCP had another word for what Archaic has

The CCCP doesnt have one voice only.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak The CCCP doesnt have one voice only.

Even on that issue? ... true, though, I was only making a joke.

[Archaic]

Give it up with the semantics WoA, it's sickening. You knew exactly what I meant, so stop twisting it.

In short.....why the **** would this person care for this other person he's mugging when part of the assumption is that he won't get caught (Or if we want to go by what you propose, that he won't get punished.) for his actions? How is it rational for him to give a damn for some stranger he's never met? I've already shown how his gain compares to his loss. What other terms are you trying to throw into the equation?


And if you recognise that being moral does not always equal being rational, start recognising that fact in your posts. It's certainly not how they read.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Archaic
Give it up with the semantics WoA, it's sickening. You knew exactly what I meant, so stop twisting it.

Archaic, man you guys stay up late! Just for my benefit? Anyway, semantics, as we discussed earlier, and a few other posters had their 2-cents-worth as well, is very important. If we use words incorrectly, we can be arguing a case for something that is a logical impossiblity, and we don't want tha, do we

In short.....why the **** would this person care for this other person he's mugging when part of the assumption is that he won't get caught (Or if we want to go by what you propose, that he won't get punished.) for his actions? How is it rational for him to give a damn for some stranger he's never met? I've already shown how his gain compares to his loss. What other terms are you trying to throw into the equation?

Are you arguing that this mugging is a rational or an irrational act? Do you really think that it is rational to steal? Please tell me why. Either our mugger is a rational man, and therefore respects his victim, or he is an irrational man, and mugs him. Are you suggesting that the rational mugger performs an unrational act, or that the unrational mugger acts rationally? Its a nice paradox. Which way round do you want it?

And if you recognise that being moral does not always equal being rational, start recognising that fact in your posts. It's certainly not how they read.

Then read them again. I thnk its pretty clear that, to give a rough paraphrase, I am saying that I am, in general, rational, and that I am, in general, against morality.

-Jam

[lucky22]

I am behind in my reading!! Aieeee!!

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by War of Art I thnk its pretty clear that, to give a rough paraphrase, I am saying that I am, in general, rational, and that I am, in general, against morality.

And, perhaps, that you, in general, use too many commas, maybe

Even more than me, which is amazing...

[Maniac]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

"Words are symbols for concepts which define your thoughts."

PErfectly correct, but I don't see why this matters.

I just wanted to say my opinion "Semantics do matter." without having to read and write pages of text.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by War of Art
Archaic, man you guys stay up late! Just for my benefit? Anyway, semantics, as we discussed earlier, and a few other posters had their 2-cents-worth as well, is very important. If we use words incorrectly, we can be arguing a case for something that is a logical impossiblity, and we don't want tha, do we

Semantics for the use of changing the clear meaning of what you and the other person are saying after the point is bull****. And I stayed up because I needed to talk to certain staff of my website and forums personally who wouldn't be online at a time I was midweek.

Originally posted by War of Art
Are you arguing that this mugging is a rational or an irrational act? Do you really think that it is rational to steal? Please tell me why. Either our mugger is a rational man, and therefore respects his victim, or he is an irrational man, and mugs him. Are you suggesting that the rational mugger performs an unrational act, or that the unrational mugger acts rationally? Its a nice paradox. Which way round do you want it?

It's a Rational Act if the benifits of the situation outweigh the losses, which we assume for the scenario I gave above. Respect is irrational, and your "mugger is a rational man, and therefore respects his victim" is a faulty leap in logic.

Originally posted by War of Art
Then read them again. I thnk its pretty clear that, to give a rough paraphrase, I am saying that I am, in general, rational, and that I am, in general, against morality.

-Jam

You're against Morality? Oh dear....
The whole point of morality is that we don't do things that would be rational for us yet are *bad* for the community in total. You don't seem to understand that.

[GeneralTacticus]

I maintain that it is irrational to kill someone untill you can come up with just one rational reason why I would want to kill someone.

I've pointed it out repeatedly -if you benefit from it. That doesn't make it right to do it, but it does mean that it's perfectly rational.

Killing someone "to stop them killing 10 others" is not a rational reason, it is just murder.

Given that you claim that 'human life should eb the highest value under any system', why is it irrational to kill one eprson to save ten others? Haven't you just preserved ten of the most rpecious things aorund?

There is nothing of high enough value to exchange for just one human life. It is not rational, especially under your system of values, to make an exchange where one loses something of high worth, to gain something of low worth.

You're assumign you live in a world where everyone thinks like you do. I think you need to wake up to the fact that not everyoen does, and this fact does not make them irrational. If they have decided that the life of a stranger is not worth anything to them (and looking at the matter with just pur elogic, you coudle asily argue 'What's the life of one person in a world overflowing with them? Why should I care what happens to someone else whose fate will have no impact on me?'

Your vision is filled with contradiction and paradox. You cannot see clearly. You speak of morals. Either you believe in a system of morals or you do not. You claim that it is possible to have "moral justification" for an immoral act, namely locking up a criminal. What is this rubbish? How is it possible to be morally justified to be immoral? This is why I refuse any concept of a universal moral code, as it is used by people, as yourself, to justify the unjustifiable.

Given that you don't believe an act can be justified by it's circumstances or it's results, I don't see why I should bother explaining it. Wake me when you're actually willing to consider an act in it's own context and not seperately.

It is irrational only to care about oneself. Any rational being will act in its best interest, and it is clearly in one's best interest to care, at least a little bit, about the environment, that, like it or not, we are a part of.

Nope. If the effects of your actions on society or the environment will not have any negative impact on you or the people you care about, then it's perfectly rational to decide to do something which will harm others if you don't care about their suffering, which is not irrational.

I have presented you with enough reasons for murder being irrational.

Not one of which goes beyond stating "It's irrational, and that's that."

I have also stated many other reasons not to use punishment in a "free" society. If you object to one of them, however long and loud you shout, you do not affect the material of my argument.

Ooh, look who's talking. You have yet to give a single argument any more substantial than telling, me that you're right and I'm wrong.

How is it not? It is the most primitive instinct, followed by reproduction. What is with these dumbass questions? Sorry, but I can't spend my whole life answering questions of this quality.

Perhaps I should rephrase that: why does thta make it bad? Without this instinct, we wouldn't exist; this instinct is what causes us to avoid jumping in the way of oncoming trains or leaping out of high windows if we feel like it.

I have already answered this question.

No you haven't. You've merely restated what you believe.

1.) You think it is wrong to kill.1.) You think it is wrong to kill.
2.) You think it is good to kill.
3.) You don't care either way.

I think it si wrong to kill without just cause - if someone is trying to kill you without just cause, you have the right to kill them. The same appleis if they're trying to kill anyone else. And ebfore you ask, I am agaisnt capital punishment in almost all cases because it's no more effective as a deterrent than prison, and some might consider it preferable to prison, it's expensive, and you can't bring the dead person back to life if you make a mistake.

Whichever you believe, the rational man will allow his own death rather than that of the other. I'm not going to explain this, I assume you are capable of following a rational argument in each case.

Given that none of the chocies you presented describes my own beliefs, as they don't take the situation into account, you're going to have to explain why exactly your own life has less value than that of another. If you claim that one shouldn't kill to stop others from killing you and base your argument on the value of human life, then that is what you are saying.

Oh, please shall we have no more point-by-point rebuffals. State your whole argument, rather than trying to pick holes in little quotes, and I'll do the same. Hmm? Like gentlemen?

It tends to get rather hard to point out the pages of logical errors you make without using quotes.

Archaic, read back over the last dozen posts or so. This is one of the few things me and GT both agree on (but for different reasons )

You actually believe I agree with you on the point I've been arguing against for days? Are you blind or something?

Are you arguing that this mugging is a rational or an irrational act? Do you really think that it is rational to steal? Please tell me why.

If the mugger derives a benefit from the act which exceeds the cost of doing it, it is a rational act. It is that simple.

Either our mugger is a rational man, and therefore respects his victim, or he is an irrational man, and mugs him. Are you suggesting that the rational mugger performs an unrational act, or that the unrational mugger acts rationally? Its a nice paradox. Which way round do you want it?

Again and again, you persist in your delusion that rationality has some connection to compassion. That you care about othe rpeople and consider yourself rational does not mean that everyone else must be the same in order to be rational.

Then read them again. I thnk its pretty clear that, to give a rough paraphrase, I am saying that I am, in general, rational, and that I am, in general, against morality.

Funny that you also claim that it is 'wrong' to do this and that. If you are against morality, why do you believe in right and wrong? They are the same damn thing.

I just wanted to say my opinion "Semantics do matter." without having to read and write pages of text.

Semantics only matter when people misunderstand one another. This does not appear to be happening in this case, at elast not over the meanings of words.

[Jamski]

If the mugger derives a benefit from the act which exceeds the cost of doing it, it is a rational act. It is that simple.

Again and again, you persist in your delusion that rationality has some connection to compassion. That you care about othe rpeople and consider yourself rational does not mean that everyone else must be the same in order to be rational.

Again and again, you persist in your delusion that rationality has some connection to profit.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Again and again, you persist in your delusion that rationality has some connection to profit.

Rationality is about thinking logically, not an attatchment to anything in particular. If the mugger in question is attatched to the welfare of other people, then I will be the first to admit that going off and mugging someone else would be an irrational act. If, however, he is attatched to his own well-being (the state of mind of most people), rather than that of others, then mugging would be perfectly logical as a means of benefitting yourself if it works.