This is truly sickening

[Whaleboy]

You claimed that you can justify eugenics, mass murder, or whatever, using utilitarianism. The burden of proof is on you....

No, I claimed that using utilitarianism, you, or one might, but it would be fallacious. That isn't to say you will... not a strawman... you were my opponent at the time. You'll note how that runs contrary to everything I stand for.

The basic utilitarian justification would run along the lines of a careful action would benefit society by removing malignant elements, be they disease prone genes, or views that would run contrary to the happy running of said society.

An argument more holey than the perforated, necrophiliated body of the pope.

[Az]

No, I claimed that using utilitarianism, you, or one might, but it would be fallacious. That isn't to say you will... not a strawman... you were my opponent at the time. You'll note how that runs contrary to everything I stand for.

The basic utilitarian justification would run along the lines of a careful action would benefit society by removing malignant elements, be they disease prone genes, or views that would run contrary to the happy running of said society.

An argument more holey than the perforated, necrophiliated body of the pope.

Well in that case, one might use any ethical theory to justify anything... And that would make this discussion take a quantum leap from just pointless to pretty goddamn annoying...
Asher:

It means no such thing. I said "it is now a flaw" earlier, as well. And notice the "if" in there -- I don't think human beings can be flawed, since there is no standard to compare against. I also never implied that they can be flawed...I've said point blank, that they can't.

No, that's not what you said, you said that

It's only a flaw if you expect humans to be completely rational.

That means that it's possible that humans can have a flow, under certain sircumstances, that means that you claimed that the "perfect" human was different from my version, not that it didn't exist.....

But nevermind that

For a human being to have flaws, it must be compared to a perfect human being in order to classify such as flaws.

You don't have to have a perfect human being, to classify things as flaws, You just have to have a guide to define characteristic as ones that are better, or worse, since a human being isn't just a single variable. There are many human beings. They have many charcteristics, If we compare two humans, we'll usually find that one person is better at some things, and worse, at other things. Doesn't render "better" and "worse" meaningless...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel

No, that's not what you said, you said that

It's only a flaw if you expect humans to be completely rational.

That means that it's possible that humans can have a flow, under certain sircumstances, that means that you claimed that the "perfect" human was different from my version, not that it didn't exist.....

But nevermind that

You're intentionally leaving out the other line of that post:

It's only a flaw if you expect humans to be completely rational.

It is not a flaw, it's quite normal.

This in no way implies that I think humans can have flaws. I said it is NOT a flaw, and I also said it could only be considered a flaw if you expect humans to be completely rational -- which I also do not think is correct.

You don't have to have a perfect human being, to classify things as flaws, You just have to have a guide to define characteristic as ones that are better, or worse, since a human being isn't just a single variable. There are many human beings. They have many charcteristics, If we compare two humans, we'll usually find that one person is better at some things, and worse, at other things. Doesn't render "better" and "worse" meaningless...

How do you rate better or worse? It's all subjective, and in the end it, too, is useless.

Flaw is not a good term to use, it can only be correctly used when you can say something is correct and something is not correct. You cannot do that with human beings. It's simple.

[Whaleboy]

Well in that case, one might use any ethical theory to justify anything... And that would make this discussion take a quantum leap from just pointless to pretty goddamn annoying...

You can use logic to justify pretty much anything, and that is the wonderful thing about it. It is a sport, an art, not a science. You might use an ethical theory to justify something, and one can poke holes in that, or we could debate different ethical theories, or different conclusions to a given theory.

You'll note that you in fact started this debate with your urge to be pedantic .

Az: Flaw to societies end, or flaw to the individuals, in a given individual?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That's the point... I don't deem their morality invalid, and my values don't come into it. If they did, like I said they'd suffer. However, in a society a calculus applies of what is acceptable of nor (variant on society of course ) whereby their actions are unacceptable.

Society has a free floating calculus? Can you see it? Can you feel it. How does one understand what this calculus is?

[Drake Tungsten]

Does anyone know the answer to my question? This sentence...

Heartbroken animal rescue worker Linda Mercer hugs this tiny puppy just before it had to be put to sleep after being kicked around by a group of youths.

... makes it sound like they were playing English football. This sentence, however...

A man walking in Temple Park, in South Shields, rescued the animal after he saw the group throwing her around.

... makes it sound like they were playing real football.

Which is it? Were these bastards at least killing a puppy in order to play a man's game?

[Ted Striker]

[Q Classic]

A man walking in Temple Park, in South Shields, rescued the animal after he saw the group throwing her around.

maybe the puppy got kicked out of bounds, and it was a throw-in?

[Drake Tungsten]

The keeper could've been in control of the puppy, as well. Still, I'd like to know for sure.

[duke o' york]

Well maybe they were 4th and 7, and had no choice against a superior defense but to go for the punt.

[Whaleboy]

... makes it sound like they were playing real football.

Only a kick or a punch would suffice in causing the damage to the poor thing. Probably some occasiosn where it was tossed or thrown to be kicked

[Drake Tungsten]

Only a kick or a punch would suffice in causing the damage to the poor thing.

You don't think tossing a puppy 40 yards on a failed fade route is going to damage it?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But when you try to impliment an unrealistic "should" into a real world situation, you may well end up with disaster despite the best of intentions. The utilitarian thing to do in that context is to limit utilitarianism! . And do you not think that considerations of human nature have implications in the realm of prescription?

Wow, is this the same person that used to say that he wasn't interested in the practicalities now claiming that because it won't work in the 'real world' the theory is bunk?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Well maybe they were 4th and 7, and had no choice against a superior defense but to go for the punt.

I shouldn't laugh, but dammit, that's a funny imaine

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You don't think tossing a puppy 40 yards on a failed fade route is going to damage it?

A "Hail Mary" at that stage of the game?

Are you mad?