Is our current strategy against terrorism working?

[yavoon]

I allow that benign morality or choice is subjective. but I hardly think morality as a whole is subjective. morality does exist and is there, u even called upon some(the mill limit). so I can't see how u can stretch taht across cultural boundaries then contend that morality is a fallacy.

if its not evident tho, I am not a relativist.

[Whaleboy]

Get some sleep

Nah, I'm trying to make 168 (to see how long I sleep at the end of it, and I'm bored so I need to "maximise my hours" in order to attempt to show the wayward the errors of their ways jk

[Kramerman]

my god... how do you stay up that long?

i can barely stay up for 36 hours... perhaps cause im always so tired...

[Whaleboy]

u even called upon some(the mill limit)

A form of morality in the human context, but in this social context, it is objective, in that it allows for all to occur, with equal validity, except for those to impede the right of another to make a valid claim (maintaining its own objectivity). I was usign it with regards to culture A vs culture B.

morality does exist

Where? Define it for all humanity, for America and Islam.

so I can't see how u can stretch taht across cultural boundaries

On the contrary, the fact that such a large context is being used shows that a subjective "small picture" concept like morality does NOT in fact apply, because it only affects that one person, or at most that one culture. Different positions are based on different assumptions and thus, one cannot put ones own position, based on a particular set of assumptions, onto another, which is based on another set of assumptions. That is really basic reasoning iirc.

[Edan]

I stayed up about 70 hours once. It gets easy fter a certain point, but I wouldn't dream of doing it again...

[Whaleboy]

my god... how do you stay up that long?

Coffee

[Edan]

Originally posted by elijah


Coffee

Amateur. I only ever used excercise and soda. Lots of soda.

[Whaleboy]

Ah!! I am in the presence of greatness!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by elijah


A form of morality in the human context, but in this social context, it is objective, in that it allows for all to occur, with equal validity, except for those to impede the right of another to make a valid claim (maintaining its own objectivity). I was usign it with regards to culture A vs culture B.

disclaimer, I am not gna discuss morality for 6 pages w/ u so please don't bait me into it.

it does not give equal validity because it precludes all that impede regardless of intention and in general is a limit upon relativism. infact the mill limit is distinctly NOT PRESENT in islam(oppression reigns, impedance is abundant). so u saying that something like the mill limit should protect islam is a little silly.

[Whaleboy]

disclaimer, I am not gna discuss morality for 6 pages w/ u so please don't bait me into it

PM me if you want, I'm writing a massive essay on it *cries in pain* so some input would be interesting.

it precludes all that impede regardless of intention

Not at all, there is influence, passive impedence (environmental... in this case the existence of the American nation), and active impedence (the USA oppressing other cultures).

infact the mill limit is distinctly NOT PRESENT in islam(oppression reigns, impedance is abundant).

Irrelevent, it is a different culture, thus a different entity with regards to America, as such, I think that America shuold let it be, shuold not interfere in other cultures.

so u saying that something like the mill limit should protect islam is a little silly.

How a society treats its individuals is wholly unrelated to how a society should be treated by other societies. There are entities and then constituent entities in the case of the individual. The USA placing itself in the position of the judge of "do unto others as ye would have done yourself" is hardly desireable (see anger generated when reading PNAC material).

[yavoon]

I dont see how u legitimately separate societal interaction from individual interaction or intra cultural interaction w/o simply giving the latter two the right to break the moral rule just cuz u said so.

and thusly ur point of irrelevance is still a sidestep. if someone accepts the mill limit as a guiding moral value and then ignores it in the vast majority of all interactions(inter personal). then that person is intellectually dishonest or politically corrupt. I mean it in a good way tho!=]

[Whaleboy]

I dont see how u legitimately separate societal interaction from individual interaction or intra cultural interaction

Because societal interaction can extend to influence and passive impedence, but according to the Mill Limit, neither has the right of active impedence.

and thusly ur point of irrelevance is still a sidestep. if someone accepts the mill limit as a guiding moral value and then ignores it in the vast majority of all interactions(inter personal). then that person is intellectually dishonest or politically corrupt. I mean it in a good way tho!=]

I dont see why. On the national/cultural level, it simply becomes something like a non-interference directive, only specific of course in terms of impeding that society actively. On the personal level, that actual society can run itself how it wishes, though imo ideally the Mill Limit. Linking the two is like saying that I should treat other people how I treat my blood cells, because the latter is the same consituent part of my body as individuals are to a society (ignoring of course the word "individual" as a consciousness, but then, with regards to societal interactions thats not really relevant). Actually thats quite a nice analogy really .

[yavoon]

ur analogy is god awful. do I really have to reply to this?

societal interaction is to interpersonal reaction as interpersonal reaction is to blood cells?

I mean c'mon=[ baby jesus is crying.

all forms of interactions can take up active impedance and influence so I'm not sure what ur really distinguishing in the first part.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by elijah
Says you and me. Do you advocate the killing of terrorists or the treatment of them in Guantanamo Bay? If so, you are liable to the same opinions from them, as you hold to them.

Moral relativist drivil. There have been dozens of books written (not to mention threads here on 'poly) as to why moral relativism is total junk.

[Whaleboy]

all forms of interactions can take up active impedance and influence

Someone is sitting on a bench. They are preventing me from sitting on that bench, which is passive impedence. I ask them to stand up and let me sit down, that is influence (voice goes into brain, brain interprets etc etc). They refuse so I physically throw them off. That is active impedence. Your argument is based on the assumption that passive impedence is the same as active, whereas it is clear that while one is intentional and directed, the other is merely required for that persons being (ok sitting on a bench, but food and air etc), and thus to react to that passive impedence to forcibly rectify it would be to use active impedence. This all boils down until you get an equilibrium, and that is the Mill Limit.

You are saying that a society should treat other societies the way it treats its individuals? Why is my analogy "god awful". Reason with me here, baby jesus needs his nappy changing!