Carly Fiorina kicked out of HP

[Asher]

Originally posted by nostromo
What are you saying? That ethics shouldn't be based on rational thought? Or that it can't be based on rational thought? I happen to think that it should be based on rational thought. I also think that it can be based, up to a certain point, on rational thought.

It would be nice if it was based on rational thought. But it's not.

Ethics are based on morals, and morals are relative to the person.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's why his threads just consist of endless repetitions of his opinions (it's OK to discriminate against smokers, bad against homosexuals, because it just is, etc.).

No, because it's okay to discriminate against something for choices they make, but not for things that are not their choices.

For example, it's okay for a fancy restaurant to fire employees who come to work nude.

It's okay for a Police force to fire an officer for smoking marijuana.

It's not okay for a fancy restaurant to fire employees who are black.

It's not okay for a Police force to fire an officer because he is short...

[Agathon]

Ethics are based on morals, and morals are relative to the person.

If you are a relativist, then you can't expect anyone else to agree with your evaluation that philosophy is not worth doing. It is merely a case of peoples' "values" or "morals" which you assert are relative. In this case, yours.

Well, the assumption that you shouldn't have to fund things that you don't want, is, according to you, merely subjective or relative, and by your own reasoning has no rational or moral claim on anyone else. Similarly with your claim that only "useful" things should be done.

And you can't claim that we are doing you wrong by forcing you to pay for them, because that's just your opinion.

In other words, you've said that we shouldn't really listen to you, because you offer reasons that are fundamentally, by your own account, wanting. A remarkable case of self-immolation, if ever there was one.

No, because it's okay to discriminate against something for choices they make, but not for things that are not their choices.

For example, it's okay for a fancy restaurant to fire employees who come to work nude.

It's okay for a Police force to fire an officer for smoking marijuana.

It's not okay for a fancy restaurant to fire employees who are black.

It's not okay for a Police force to fire an officer because he is short...

So say you. But according to your own theory, who cares what you think? You say it's just based on your individual preferences, and those aren't a reason for anyone else to care if you are right.

[Nostromo]

Here's an idea: It doesn't matter what the philosophers think.

If a philosopher is in a bioethical comitee, and if that comitee influences your government's decision to legalize or not something, then, yes, what he thinks matters up to a certain point.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
If you are a relativist, then you can't expect anyone else to agree with your evaluation that philosophy is not worth doing. It is merely a case of peoples' "values" or "morals" which you assert are relative. In this case, yours.

Well, the assumption that you shouldn't have to fund things that you don't want, is, according to you, merely subjective or relative, and by your own reasoning has no rational or moral claim on anyone else. Similarly with your claim that only "useful" things should be done.

And you can't claim that we are doing you wrong by forcing you to pay for them, because that's just your opinion.

In other words, you've said that we shouldn't really listen to you, because you offer reasons that are fundamentally, by your own account, wanting. A remarkable case of self-immolation, if ever there was one.

Exhibit A for my entire argument.

Thanks, Agathon.

So say you. But according to your own theory, who cares what you think? You say it's just based on your individual preferences, and those aren't a reason for anyone else to care if you are right.

Nope, but some people may agree with my thinking or see the reasoning behind why I believe that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by nostromo
If a philosopher is in a bioethical comitee, and if that comitee influences your government's decision to legalize or not something, then, yes, what he thinks matters up to a certain point.

Until the public revolts.

The government serves the public, not the bioethical committee.

[Agathon]

The government serves the public, not the bioethical committee.

That's simply the way you feel. Why should you expect anyone else to feel that way. After all you have argued that it just boils down to what you feel.

All you are saying is that you would like it if we agreed with you.

But why should we care about what you like -- because you like it? That's not a reason for anyone else to listen to anything you say. By your own account you are talking garbage, and I actually agree with you on that one.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's simply the way you feel. Why should you expect anyone else to feel that way. After all you have argued that it just boils down to what you feel.

All you are saying is that you would like it if we agreed with you.

But why should we care about what you like -- because you like it? That's not a reason for anyone else to listen to anything you say. By your own account you are talking garbage, and I actually agree with you on that one.

No, Agathon, it's a pretty fundamental fact that the purpose of a democracy is to serve the public and not a bioethical committee.

[Agathon]

Nope, but some people may agree with my thinking or see the reasoning behind why I believe that.

But by your own account there is fundamentally no reasoning behind your position, as you seem to think it isn't a matter of reason.

Squawking at people for disagreeing with you is hypocritical in such circumstances, but I suppose that you don't care much about hypocrisy either... figures really.

[Agathon]

No, Agathon, it's a pretty fundamental fact that the purpose of a democracy is to serve the public and not a bioethical committee.

Not really. It is a value claim, and by your own account is relative. No one else has any reason to believe it, and you can't complain if you are getting stiffed because all you are saying is that you don't like it.

Skippedy. That's no reason for anyone to stop. Especially gay bashers, who are just following their own values. There's really nothing wrong with gay bashing according to you, other than that some people don't like it.

But the belief that we should stop things if people don't like them is just your belief. Gay bashers certainly don't subscribe to that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
But by your own account there is fundamentally no reasoning behind your position, as you seem to think it isn't a matter of reason.

Squawking at people for disagreeing with you is hypocritical in such circumstances, but I suppose that you don't care much about hypocrisy either... figures really.

You jump to conclusions, grasshopper.

It's not that there's no reasoning behind my position, it's that my reasoning is biased from my own experiences.

I never said there is no such thing as reason.

For a philosopher you really do have terrible reading comprehension skills.

As a sidenote, my reasoning for philosophy's uselessness is also based on my experiences -- not the least of which is Apolyton and people like you. You should be proud.

[Agathon]

It's not that there's no reasoning behind my position, it's that my reasoning is biased from my own experiences.

But it's not reasoning that anyone else could be required to agree with. Hence it's just relativistic claptrap.

I'll remember this when you post your next gay whine thread.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
But it's not reasoning that anyone else could be required to agree with. Hence it's just relativistic claptrap.

I'll remember this when you post your next gay whine thread.

Remember what, that I said everyone's reasoning and opinions are based on their experiences?

Is this a revelation to you or something?

[:) Smiley]

This is getting to be almost as bad as a Kidicious C vs. C thread...

[Agathon]

Remember what, that I said everyone's reasoning and opinions are based on their experiences?

That's not what I was getting at, and it's not even true in any case, but I can't be bothered wasting any more time. Arguing with relativists is pointless, largely because relativism is pointless.