homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Rants, Raves, Rumors!   » Morality in Society (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: Morality in Society
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 17:25      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
Your not arguing your just saying the oppiste of whatever I say!

Don't you mean "you're"?

Your so gay.

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 18:05      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm sorry, this is abuse." [Wink]
Posts: 5848 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 18:08      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
"I'm sorry, this is abuse." [Wink]

Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full hour?

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 18:17      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ASM's tree is notably missing Gratuitous Use of Capitals. [Wink]

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 18:48      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
ASM's tree is notably missing Gratuitous Use of Capitals. [Wink]

It is also missing a point.

He has been laying off the bold also since is was accused of posting under that other nick. [Wink] [Razz]

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 19:02      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
He has been laying off the bold also since is was accused of posting under that other nick. [Wink] [Razz]

I don't remember that accusation. Who did we think his alternate personality was again?

Oh, yes I do, now [Big Grin] But the "alternates" posts are much easier to understand and follow, so I don't think they really are one and the same.

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 20:23      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
ASM's tree is notably missing Gratuitous Use of Capitals. [Wink]

I must say, I saw these references first, then I Went to the Previous Page, and read through a little, Mostly Ignoring Things, until I got to a Certain Post, and Laughed My F***ing Arse Off. That was Truly Sad to see So Much Effort Spent on something of So Little Value.

I'd Write In Emboldened Text [edit][in Random Places][/edit], but I'm Under The Weather and Too Damn Lazy Right Now.

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9333 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 20:25      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[I really hate UBB some days...]

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9333 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 21:06      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
/me is too tired to even follow

And the sucky thing is my column hasn't even finished loading. Once it does, I've got another 2.5-3 hours of watching things go drip before I can throw it all in a dialysis bag and go home. I *hate* proteins you can't freeze. I also hate it that I'm looking at, when it's all said and done, a 16 hour day with what will most likely be no results. Screw morality. I just want a hot dinner and a warm bed. [cry baby]

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 21:24      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, on further reflection, ASM's latest post isn't that bad. It's easier to follow than some of his others, and I like the fact he's trying to work out some structured system to make sense of ethics and morality.

The fatal flaw of his approach, IMHO, is that it's hard to judge the full consequences of a decision at the time. What if someone starts tormenting animals, and ends up as a serial killer (there's been studies to show that people who were cruel to other people generally started with animal cruelty). What if someone started drinking, became an alcoholic, and thus ruined his relationships with all those close to him? What if someone started reading stories of sexual assault and rape on the 'net, and decided one day to act it out?

In other words, in my view, people don't just progress to "large scale" immoral acts overnight. There's a process of rationalisation and self-deception that occurs over a period of time, and it's difficult to look at distinct points or decisions.

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 22:21      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
The fatal flaw of his approach, IMHO, is that it's hard to judge the full consequences of a decision at the time.


Hence, one reason that philosophers haven't reached a common set of laws that define "good".

quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
But where do the absolutes come from? God? Which god? And what if you don't believe god exists at all (please, let's not go into that old debate here!)? Do moral absolutes even exist at all? What is morality anyways? I think we need to define that before we can discuss any perceived decay in our culture. What's moral according to one religion or culture is not moral according to another. How are we supposed to pick a set of absolutes and then apply them to a nation as diverse as the US?


quote:
Originally posted by Serenak:
My (admittedly limited) reading and understanding of most major religious texts seems to boil down to one main thing:
"DON'T BE S**TTY"
So nicely coined by Bill and Ted as "Be excellent to one another and party on dude!"


Uh ... just a thought. We could try logic and the Scientific Method. (I don't know why a geek wouldn't think of that.)

Most philosophers seemed to argue about what tests should determine good or evil for an action or law.

However, I know of no "great" philosopher which stated anything like: "Killing Innocent Humans for Entertainment is Good." The point being that they all agreed that murder and theft were wrong, and could demonstrate this by logic instead of simply saying "God told me." The ability to prove murder as harmful to society was not unique to Christianity, or "Western Values."

If it can be shown through logic that a given behavior is good, would you choose to routinely do otherwise?

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 22:46      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
If it can be shown through logic that a given behavior is good, would you choose to routinely do otherwise?

<philosophy-professor>
Sex is more fun than logic.

I cannot prove this, but it IS, just as Mount Everest IS and Almer Kogen ISN'T
</philosophy-professor>

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 4 posted September 27, 2004 22:46      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*** WARNING: PERSONAL REBUTTAL ***

Part I

Since Cap'n Vic feels the need to let everyone know that I'm a "troll", I'll make some observations about him.

1. Apparently, Cap'n Vic is the only one that gets drawn into responding to my posts ("trolling") with abusive remarks and personal attacks.

2. Cap'n Vic is the only person I know that goes off topic in a thread, specifically for the purpose of making vindictive remarks against others.

3. Cap'n Vic is an Idiot. When he no relevant points to make in an argument, he will criticize the use of capitalization and bold typeface, and make inane off-topic posts and accusations of flame-baiting.

Part II

Cap'n Vic is arguably antisocial. (As opposed to "no one would call him antisocial.")

1. (Although he may have improved) Cap'n Vic used the F-word without much restraint and made personal attacks when he strongly disagreed with someone. The message thread: "Vulgarity and Ridicule" was started because of my experience with Cap'n Vic.
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001389

2. My guess is that his favorite movies and music are largely violence, abusive language, and portrayal of government or law enforcement as tyranny. Antisocial behavior is perfectly acceptable as long as it's "only for entertainment."

3. His view on morality is probably that values are relative to culture. That is, two cultures can have opposed values, such as on the rights of women, but both are "right," and as a result, no culture can rightfully insist that another culture follow outside values.

4. He is "religious" in his beliefs. He will commonly dismiss an opposing argument as propaganda, false, or irrelevant, in the same way that the pope would not accept the statement that the Bible is inferior to the Jewish scriptures.

Cap'n Vic's statement that I am a troll is one of several "religious" beliefs that he has.

Part III

quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
Pretty selective mainstream over produced 'artists'.....what about Ice T, NWA and Ice cube?


I've been trying to make a point about declining values (morality) in mainstream society. Therefore, I draw examples from the "mainstream". Metallica was a major metal band, but it was not mainstream and got almost no airplay. I don't remember NWA being Top-40. "Nothing Else Matters" by Metallica was Top-40, but it was hardly reflective of most of their albums.

quote:
All kinds of positive stuff, if you look. Check out the new Ma$e.

If I have to spend much time looking for it, it's not mainstream. I get to hear Eminem even when I don't want to.

quote:
Have you ever been to NYC....it is pretty multicultural and diverse. If your gonna generalize, pick Alabama or somewhere.

About my example of "disenfranchised" white-trash racists: I thought most people would make the observation that "Of course they don't get any respect, racism is socially unacceptable." Cap'n Vic, your response makes me wonder: "Do white-trash racists speak freely (about the inferiority of other races, etc) because New York City respects multicultural values and diversity?"

quote:
Check out some 2pak....you'd be surprised what he wrote about.

Surprised about what? Killing cops? Using assault weapons for gang violence? How often some form of the word F_ck can be used?

quote:
Don't watch 'em if you don't like 'em. There is tons of crap on TV. This stuff is like a car wreck....no one wants to see but every one looks.

Once again the subject is mainstream. TV and radio are businesses. Advertising pays the bills. If no one watches a show, the networks don't get money from advertising. Therefore, the explanation for "tons of crap" on TV is that people are actually watching "tons of crap," and that makes it mainstream.

quote:
It breaks my heart to see people losing jobs/investments. Why doesn't the gov't help? Oh yeah, they are too busy killing people overseas. [Roll Eyes]

"It breaks your heart?" I beg your pardon, is your attitude "if I can't be happy, no one else deserves happiness either" (which is a variant of "if I can't have it, no one else will"). Are you trying to say that if we didn't go to Iraq, no one would be hurt by the Enron scandal? Many organizations which offer pensions invest in other corporations through the stock market as a means of providing benefits to ordinary employees. Failed investments hurt "the little guys" most. Do you want to explain how much you hate Americans? I think I know your definition of what a "good American" is, but it might prevent some misunderstanding if you'd explain yourself.

FWIW: I understand that people often find it difficult to follow the intent of my posts. I suppose adding tags such as: "point", "assertion", and "support for assertion" might help, but I probably won't.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 22:48      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
However, I know of no "great" philosopher which stated anything like: "Killing Innocent Humans for Entertainment is Good."

Quite right. They'd capitalise quite differently [Wink]

/GC Needs More New Cliches, Right?

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 23:11      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Cap'n Vic is arguably antisocial. (As opposed to "no one would call him antisocial.")
...
2. My guess is that his favorite movies and music are largely violence, abusive language, and portrayal of government or law enforcement as tyranny. Antisocial behavior is perfectly acceptable as long as it's "only for entertainment."

quote:

I consider the "effects" of acts as generally being more important than the type of act itself; however, this means morality requires the ability to understand the consequences of one's actions.

Am I the only one who sees these two views as mutually exclusive? Unless you're talking about the fuzzy difficult to quantify long term effects, as opposed to the fairly easy to determine immediate ones?

Or are you arguing "Cap'n Vic doesn't like me because the gangsta rap music he listens to turns him into an antisocial lout"? Cause if you are, that seems like a mighty long bow to be drawing.

Edit: Incidentally, how do you intend to work out a system of ethics using pure logic? Any ethical/moral system must have a set of beliefs, or underlying assumptions at the core. Even if it's simple things like "You can't kill another human being unless you have a good reason" (where "good reason" and "another human being" are suitably well defined elsewhere). That sort of belief is not a logical belief, logic is not built to express this sort of thing.

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 23:21      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Uh ... just a thought. We could try logic and the Scientific Method. (I don't know why a geek wouldn't think of that.)

Probably because the scientific method is not meant to be and was never designed to be applied to cases like these. The scientific method was developed 300+ years ago as a way to understand how the world works, not why it works the way it does or how it should work. Furthermore, applying the scientific method to human behavior is fraught with trouble (very very difficult to ctonrol for all the variables).

Furthermore, have you ever tried applying logic to something as completely irrational and faith-based as religious belief? You'd have to try - that's where a lot of people get their moral compass from.

quote:
His view on morality is probably that values are relative to culture. That is, two cultures can have opposed values, such as on the rights of women, but both are "right," and as a result, no culture can rightfully insist that another culture follow outside values.
Please explain to me why this is a bad thing.

<offtopic>It's after midnight. I've been here since before 9 this morning. I wanna go home. Where's a fairy godmother when you need one?</offtopic>

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
littlefish
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 966

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 28, 2004 01:00      Profile for littlefish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well Xanthine, the Indian Caste system does not assume that all people are born equal, however it is deeply entrenched in their religious beliefs, and I wouldn't want to go over there and tell them their religion as rubbish and all people are equal.


What ASM doesn't seem to understand is the subjectivity of 'good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong'. He seems to think there are moral absolutes, which can't be defined, instead of a continuum between 'lots of people think this is a good idea' and 'very few people think this is a good idea' .

Anyway, no more arguing for me on this topic, the exchange of ideas seems to be limited to new insults.

Posts: 2421 | From: That London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twinkle Toes
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1208

Member Rated:
4
Icon 7 posted September 28, 2004 02:00      Profile for Twinkle Toes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Instead of "exceptions", analyze values by creating a tree. For example:

1. Killing
- 1.A. Humans (that is "Killing humans."
- 1.B. Animals
- 1.C. Plants
2. Making False Statements
...
- - 1.A.1. Innocents
- - 1.A.2. Criminals
...
- - - 1.A.1.a. for Entertainment
- - - 1.A.1.b. to Prevent Loss of Lives to Others (ex. Spread of Deadly Disease)
- - - 1.A.1.c. to End Suffering (Terminally Ill)

Does this tree represent the classified importance of components concerning their value within societal laws or in life? If life: who says animals and plants aren't just as vital as we, if not more so? If laws: if you're ranking in value, wouldn't 1.A.1. subtrees be classified as such: 1.A.1.c, 1.A.1.b, 1.A.1.a?

On to my point...

You are taking the philosophical approach based on natural law: a universal moral law that, unlike physical laws, can be understood by applying reason/logic. However, philosophy is more deeply-rooted in religion (ex: Erasmus) than scientific method or reason. Many such orderly processes were founded on the basis of religious beliefs, such as American democracy from Puritanism. I think what you're asserting about the "obvious laws" being marginalized in society is that you don't like that the principles of laws are being ignored and manipulated to save, say, a murderer because he pleads insanity. Your logic tells you that, though he may be/might have been insane, he should still have to accept the consequences of his action(s). This sounds a lot like what the Puritans had in mind for their "City Upon A Hill:" they tried to scare everyone straight to assure their way into heaven, which meant killing anyone who didn't follow the rules precisely. Also, in Connecticut Blue Law, it was stated that if a boy - at least sixteen years in age - didn't obey the voice of his father or mother (if he didn't come when they called), he would be put to death. And if a parent chose to, they could also have their children put to death should they happen to curse or smite them. It wasn't an unlikely thing for a parent to do either. If you'll consider the seriousness of upholding societal policies: the parents would live in fear of banishment or possibly execution. I understand your view on consequences, but throughout history it has inevitably proven inhumane. This evidence should satisfy your analytical approach.

quote:
...however, this means morality requires the ability to understand the consequences of one's actions.
This can, in no reasonable way, be incorporated into actual law. Everyone has the ability to understand consequences, but it is their choice to decide whether to apply that knowledge to action or not.

That point aside...

quote:
"I thought that the "War on Drugs" made it clear that just passing laws doesn't solve problems."

[My post]
'reducing the demand for it is a far more effective control measure' - So increasing the supply of drugs is a better way of keeping people in line? Isn't that what you're saying?

I was just trying to squeeze an answer out of you. I actually agree that less restrictions make for a better society... initially, at least. But of course you didn't answer, because no one ever listens to me [Roll Eyes] ... Do people even read these things anymore?

(I'll continue anyways)

BTW, I'm not a religious person, per se. I'm Agnostic and have been for a good while. I would never want to belong to any religious title, but my beliefs kind of lean toward a mix of a supreme being and evolution (-caused by supreme being).

/Sidenote: everytime I try and type ASM65916, I always start out with "Asimov"... HMMMM...

Posts: 1617 | From: a membrane near you! | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 28, 2004 02:35      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:

Uh ... just a thought. We could try logic and the Scientific Method. (I don't know why a geek wouldn't think of that.)

Just out of interest .....

How does "To hell with the evidence, hang-em-high !" fit with your newfound respect for the scientific method?

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 28, 2004 06:27      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quoting TT
Does this tree represent the classified importance of components concerning their value within societal laws or in life? If life: who says animals and plants aren't just as vital as we, if not more so? If laws: if you're ranking in value, wouldn't 1.A.1. subtrees be classified as such: 1.A.1.c, 1.A.1.b, 1.A.1.a?
His tree didn't nessecarily have an order... The real question is it a Red-Black tree, a BTree, etc.

On to my point...

You are taking the philosophical approach based on natural law: a universal moral law that, unlike physical laws, can be understood by applying reason/logic.

Natural law and social contacttheory are the basis for this society. The puritian beliefs, while present in the mores and responsible for why certian laws are past is second to the idea that members of this soceity agreed that we wouldn't break these laws to have the ensurance that others wouldn't break these laws. Social contract theory doesn't argue whether or not there are absolute morals, just how and why legislation by a government makes sense.

However, philosophy is more deeply-rooted in religion (ex: Erasmus) than scientific method or reason.
Yes, and no. The idea of philosphy is to back up your point of veiw with evidence beyond the "the book says so." The early philosphers were heritics in the churches and societys for that very reason. The idea in philosophy is that you build a belief system starting from the most basic parts (elements or axioms) of truth that are self-evident, and work up (much like the laws of math (esp. geomotry)). Which is why symbolic logic is a Phil. course, and logical proofs look like geometry proofs.

All of this doesn't mean that philosphy isn't drastically influenced by religon and that philophers would invoke "God" to solve a problem they haven't another way to get through (read: as in Descartes' "Three Meditations").

I think what you're asserting about the "obvious laws" being marginalized in society is that you don't like that the principles of laws are being ignored and manipulated to save, say, a murderer because he pleads insanity.
hmm.. He said that moral judgement requires the understanding of consquences... So, if this was his point (and I'm not sure it was), then he'd be in a very sticky situation.

This can, in no reasonable way, be incorporated into actual law. Everyone has the ability to understand consequences,
I don't think so. I know people who don't fully understand the implications of their actions. They mean to do good, but never understand how their actions will have an effect on the world.

but it is their choice to decide whether to apply that knowledge to action or not.
That is a different issue... If they understand the consquences and do it anyway then they are acting immorally.

because no one ever listens to me
I do.

Do people even read these things anymore?
yup.

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ooby
Highlie
Member # 2603

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 28, 2004 10:19      Profile for ooby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The belief that simply knowing what your consequences are allows you to determine what you should and should not do is fundamentally unsound if what you are talking about is consequentialism.

The most relavent example is our controversial war in Iraq. On both sides of the controversy, there are folks who believe that Saddam Hussein was a dictator and should not be allowed to be in power. But, there is one side who believes that he should be removed by any force necessary. The opposition to this view disagrees philosphically with the former. They believe that by allowing any force necessary to be used, an opportunity to create a situation worse than what would have happened if the amount of force were limited.

The flaw in consequentialism can be easily seen with this very common equation: %Efficiency = Useful Work/Energy Used * 100%. In this equation, using energy close to the useful amount is more favorable than using an amount much much higher. If one mean is more favorable than another and the end justifies the means, then is one mean more justified than the other?

--------------------
"haven't you ever wondered if there's more to life than being really, really, rediculously good looking?"

Posts: 680 | From: South Jersey | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 28, 2004 10:39      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing about the Puritans... they followed the letter of the law instead of the spirit of it. In their zeal to do "good," they did evil. Christianity has always been about freedom (John 10:9-11, NIV "I [Jesus] am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."). In their effort to gain approval from He-who-is-fully-God, the Puritans forgot about the part of Jesus that was fully human. Jesus displayed emotion (he cried when his friend Lazarus died) and played with children (even when his disciples frowned on him for doing so). The Puritans frowned upon both. They strike me as being very Augustinian. Augustine lived with a woman before he became a Christian, then when he did, he put her away and denied any kind of sexuality, totally neglecting portions of the Bible where God promotes marriage and sexuality.

I apologize for this being rather disjointed. I think what I've been trying to get at is that we as people sometimes cling to laws that make us comfortable. We are afraid of freedom. The Puritans were afraid that if they relaxed their rules, all hell would break loose: children would disobey their parents, every unwed woman would become pregnant, etc. In their zeal to preserve the orderliness of their society, they squelched the life right out of it. As I quoted before, that's contrary to one of Jesus' goals here on earth.

The question then becomes, if they were well-intentioned, does that negate behaviors that we feel were inherently "wrong"? Whoever heard of punishing a person with death because they didn't listen to their parent on the first call? (Why did the Puritan society become punitive instead of educative? Whatever happened to grace to forgive inevitable mistakes?)

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 28, 2004 10:53      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well ASM65816, I am sure you have been waiting in your trailer park with baited breath for a response *sigh* So, here we go.

PERSONAL REBUTTAL? In a public forum? You could have pm’d me, but since you wish to air your laundry in public. So be it.

First, let me say I still find it difficult to debate/argue/communicate with someone seeming incapable of holding a thought longer than the time it takes a Whitehouse intern to drop to her knees.

ASM, for a guy who outwardly despises personal attacks I think you have set some sort of record for name calling in a single post. But you know what; it doesn’t bother me in the slightest because of whom it is coming from.

I have posted, in this thread and others, evidence which backs up the fact that you seem to post topics in a deliberate fashion to cause people to be at odds with one and other. Also, it wasn’t long ago that you freely admitted to posting utter shit as ‘a joke’ only after you were painted into a corner and confronted by several folks. I am too lazy to search for this thread, but I think most people here remember it. There is also the belief that around that time you were also posting under an alternate nickname to steer the course of a thread. Call it what you want, but to me, and I am sure others this is the true definition of troll as it relates to forums, BBS and IRC.

I personally don’t think a forum is the ideal place to debate passionate topics to begin with, I envision a place like this where people come to share ideas, jokes and expertise in a light hearted way. I think you may notice a pattern where ‘your’ threads have deteriorated into shit slinging sessions. Much like when someone registers on GC simply to sell something they are met with hostility, the same can be said for your choice of topics: Death penalty, abortion, morality, GWII etc etc. People are going to have strong views….be prepared to deal with the backlash of posting such things.

If you read through my responses to you, I have asked you, for ease of debate to make your posts coherent, possibly to a single topic as opposed to several rambling, disjointed, bolded, capitalized, italicized manifestos. You admit to doing this but make no effort to make it easier for the rest of us to understand what you are going on about.

I won’t even attempt to respond to the rest of your rambling post, because honestly I don’t feel the need to stoop to that level right now nor do I understand what point you are trying so desperately to make. My suggestion to you for the sake of the others, is that, if you so choose to continue this, pm me m’kay?

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 28, 2004 14:33      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
The thing about the Puritans... they followed the letter of the law instead of the spirit of it.

The thing about the Puritans is that they were fscking psychopaths.

A distinguished British historian, when discussing the dark years of their ascendancy in England, described them as a 'Protestant Taliban'.

These nutters banned singing, dancing, drinking, closed the theatres, and even banned the celebration of Christmas. When some moderate churches gathered for Xmas morning services in defiance of their edict, the army were sent in and worshippers were dragged off to prison.

Their rule was so unbearable that a nation who had just fought a long and bitter civil war to rid itself of the monarchy ended up begging the king to return from exile and save them from those maniacs.

Because they couldn't bear the sight of their neighbors enjoying themselves, they then packed up their gear and sailed across the water, where they entertained themselves by burning witches and hanging teenage native-american newlyweds for the 'crime' of entering a non christian marriage.

</rant>

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Serenak

Member # 2950

Member Rated:
4
Icon 9 posted September 28, 2004 17:41      Profile for Serenak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sad to see this discussion descending (as so many on 'boards) into slanging, namecalling and "off topic" garbage.

I'm happy to follow a thread wherever it may wander... Sometimes the best discussions come from a topic wandering from original topic to a tangential one as the debate/discussion evolves... However, mudslinging/namecalling and abuse don't count as moving the disussion forward in my book.

To be honest this thread is beginnng to grate on me because there is more "trolling" and response to said than "discussion"

Here is a point from TV as I watch/type - a deaf couple wish to abort their unborn feotus because genetic testing shows *it is unlikely to be deaf* [Confused]

Beats me - my daughters are now 4years and 3 weeks old, and my partner's and my biggest concerns during pregnancy were that they hadn't inherited either of our genetic/congenital defects... I have a club foot and Jackie has mild cerebral palsy (previously spasticity) which luckily (in her case) only results in deformity of the feet and severe loss of sensation below the mid thighs. We both also suffer from moderately bad myopia and it's likely our children will too - but my eldest was checked out by the hospital and is currently OK (myopia set in at approx 13 for both of us and my mother so that is the time to watch I guess...)

I joined this group for some form of "adult" discussion (that means grown up, not smutty!) If I want trolls/abuse/ranting/etc. I'll go back to /. and OSNews....

C'mon, surely were here for fun and mutual enjoyment through interaction? Tell me I'm wrong or I guess it'll be time to start searching for *another* forum - fsck, I am so sick of these boards where nothing gets beyond "my hardware/OS/experience/job/life is better than yours". Do I need to add the childhood "Na Nah Na Naah Naah", or perhaps I should just use it as a signature?

Serenak

--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."

Posts: 1937 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam