I did that to make a point. I am not going to spell check so that Falk can no longer nitpick about spelling mistakes. Me caring validates him for pointing it out in the first place. The intentional mistakes were put there to show how weak his argument is since the biggest falt he can make with my argument is a typo. That is just an inch shy of saying “hey, isn’t Zooey a girls name? You must be a fag”. Or something else childish like that.
You missed the point.
Somehow having difficulty with punching in ballot cards makes one an idiot, whereas copious spelling mistakes and terrible grammer by a college graduate makes for some pretty serious whining when pointed out by someone else.
IMO - the fact that you are too lazy/incompetant to write properly makes for an interesting visual when you make fun of other people, using their mistake as a basis for an argument.
As a relatavist, you can’t even say Saddam was a bad guy. The best you can do is say, “Well, I personally wouldn’t have done that…” Relatavism always seems to fall apart when you ask the relatavist, “Is it wrong to rape a child?” and they respond “Well, it depends…”. Some things just seem universally wrong.
thats not true at all. i can say he was a bad guy, based on my standards.
and universal arguments always fall apart when you ask WHY something is universally wrong. they either respond “well, uh…because it seems like it”, or “because of God/natural law”. but thats not an answer at all. for one thing, it requires belief in one of those things, which not everyone has, so youve just made a relativist argument yourself.
I’ve read a bit about a compromise position: some moral truths are universal, while some are relative based on culture, belief systems, etc.
thats interesting, because as a christian, there is only one morality that is true for you.
anyway, this runs into problems, because whats universal? murder, you would probably say. but what constitutes murder? intent? intent with malice? and what else would be considered a universal moral? what if i think abortion is murder, but you dont (i actually dont, and you may, im not sure)? how do we know who is right? we have the same cultural background, so its not a culturally based relative moral, is it? its universal in your system? but who is right? how are we to know?
consider murder again. hobbes says that in the state of nature, might literally makes right (im stronger than you, so your food is now mine), and morals are nonexistant, meaning whatever you can do, you should, if you want to. mankind forms societies to elevate themselves from this primal state, so that its possible for people to peacefully coexist, without worrying they will be clubbed to death over their french fries at lunch time.
the notion of murder being wrong arises from this. its a practical consideration taken by man that killing each other is wrong, so they can establish a society. and different cultures formed different rules about what is allowable (many societies do, or did, practice ritualistic slayings). these do not come from some underlying moral principle, but for strictly pragmatic reasons. morality is an artificial construct, not a natural guiding force that determines rightness and wrongness in the world.
@cystic:
I did that to make a point. I am not going to spell check so that Falk can no longer nitpick about spelling mistakes. Me caring validates him for pointing it out in the first place. The intentional mistakes were put there to show how weak his argument is since the biggest falt he can make with my argument is a typo. That is just an inch shy of saying “hey, isn’t Zooey a girls name? You must be a fag”. Or something else childish like that.
You missed the point.
Somehow having difficulty with punching in ballot cards makes one an idiot, whereas copious spelling mistakes and terrible grammer by a college graduate makes for some pretty serious whining when pointed out by someone else.
IMO - the fact that you are too lazy/incompetant to write properly makes for an interesting visual when you make fun of other people, using their mistake as a basis for an argument.
First and foremost, I would like to point out the obvious
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5108
Mod or not, you really should practice what you preach (or at least what the site preaches).
Second, this site is not college. It offers me entertainment, if it didn’t, I wouldn’t post. If it were a college paper you can be sure I would proof read everything, because than I have a grade at stake. When you vote, you have something at stake… your say on who your leaders are going to be. The people who could not master the art of punching a hole lost thier voice because they lacked the intelect to use a punch card, for something that was obviously important for them to at least go to the polls. And as a result, we have had GWB for the past 5 years. Something I am sure you don’t like.
I have noticed gramatical mistakes on this board, but I don’t mention them because they are not important. If you are suggesting that everyone post need to be term paper quality, you are not going to have anyone posting. I don’t want to proof read my own stuff much less others, and than base my reaction to what they say on a typo. I live with 2 kids who I have to do that with with thier homework, I don’t want to do it here. Should I go through all your posts looking for a typo so that it invalidates any opinion you have?
This board is for entertainment, it is really that simple. Not seeing the need to spell check a forum is vastly different than voting. If you don’t understand that, than I can’t help you. If I Kan (notice how that is spelled wrong but you still know what I am getting at) make my point understood than argue the point. If my grammar or spelling is so bad that you can’t understand me, than you have a point. But that is not what you are asserting.
In the end, you are probably right. It does stem from a certain degree of laziness. Posting is not important enough for me to treat this board like a term paper. A laziness you are also familiar because you reduced the argument to personal insults. I will concede our mutual laziness, but I am incompetant too eh?
Yanny… your call. You made the thread on personal attacks. What do you think?
Just thought of a good way to put this. Since this is an A&A board most of the posts are about strategy. Does someone’s strategy in A&A become invalid because of a typo? No, you can use or not use the strategy based on its merits and a typo does not invalidate what they have said if they get thier point across. Now look at voting which is much more important than a game. A mistake there takes away your voice. To expect the min. that the person be able to use a punch card is not asking a lot.
As a relatavist, you can’t even say Saddam was a bad guy. The best you can do is say, “Well, I personally wouldn’t have done that…” Relatavism always seems to fall apart when you ask the relatavist, “Is it wrong to rape a child?” and they respond “Well, it depends…”. Some things just seem universally wrong.
thats not true at all. i can say he was a bad guy, based on my standards.
and universal arguments always fall apart when you ask WHY something is universally wrong. they either respond “well, uh…because it seems like it”, or “because of God/natural law”. but thats not an answer at all. for one thing, it requires belief in one of those things, which not everyone has, so youve just made a relativist argument yourself.I’ve read a bit about a compromise position: some moral truths are universal, while some are relative based on culture, belief systems, etc.
thats interesting, because as a christian, there is only one morality that is true for you.
anyway, this runs into problems, because whats universal? murder, you would probably say. but what constitutes murder? intent? intent with malice? and what else would be considered a universal moral? what if i think abortion is murder, but you dont (i actually dont, and you may, im not sure)? how do we know who is right? we have the same cultural background, so its not a culturally based relative moral, is it? its universal in your system? but who is right? how are we to know?consider murder again. hobbes says that in the state of nature, might literally makes right (im stronger than you, so your food is now mine), and morals are nonexistant, meaning whatever you can do, you should, if you want to. mankind forms societies to elevate themselves from this primal state, so that its possible for people to peacefully coexist, without worrying they will be clubbed to death over their french fries at lunch time.
the notion of murder being wrong arises from this. its a practical consideration taken by man that killing each other is wrong, so they can establish a society. and different cultures formed different rules about what is allowable (many societies do, or did, practice ritualistic slayings). these do not come from some underlying moral principle, but for strictly pragmatic reasons. morality is an artificial construct, not a natural guiding force that determines rightness and wrongness in the world.
Interesting points. But you have to look at the big picture. Murder is wrong, but murder is ok if it is in a war. Depending on the society, it is ok to kill other people if you are at war with an opposing society. “Good or bad guys” really is not the point. Now larger nations club smaller ones for thier “french fries” instead of it being on an individual basis. It is still survival of the fittest, just on a larger scale.
but why is murder wrong? because people say it is. thats all. the rest of your post was irrelevant to what i was saying
thats not true at all. i can say he was a bad guy, based on my standards.
But you have to qualify it with “based on my standards…according to me…the way my beliefs are… etc.” Intuitively though, it just seems like some things are morally repugnant without qualification. Usually involving kids.
and universal arguments always fall apart when you ask WHY something is universally wrong. they either respond “well, uh…because it seems like it”, or “because of God/natural law”. but thats not an answer at all. for one thing, it requires belief in one of those things, which not everyone has, so youve just made a relativist argument yourself.
But you’re left with the equally unappetizing statement: “Well, I guess sometimes it’s all right to torture children for the fun of it.”
thats interesting, because as a christian, there is only one morality that is true for you.
I’m not a Christian. I just like what Christ says. I don’t believe in his divinity or anything.
anyway, this runs into problems, because whats universal? murder, you would probably say. but what constitutes murder? intent? intent with malice? and what else would be considered a universal moral? what if i think abortion is murder, but you dont (i actually dont, and you may, im not sure)? how do we know who is right? we have the same cultural background, so its not a culturally based relative moral, is it? its universal in your system? but who is right? how are we to know?
You can’t prove ethics. In the end, you have to go on intution.
consider murder again. hobbes says that in the state of nature, might literally makes right (im stronger than you, so your food is now mine), and morals are nonexistant, meaning whatever you can do, you should, if you want to. mankind forms societies to elevate themselves from this primal state, so that its possible for people to peacefully coexist, without worrying they will be clubbed to death over their french fries at lunch time.
the notion of murder being wrong arises from this. its a practical consideration taken by man that killing each other is wrong, so they can establish a society. and different cultures formed different rules about what is allowable (many societies do, or did, practice ritualistic slayings). these do not come from some underlying moral principle, but for strictly pragmatic reasons. morality is an artificial construct, not a natural guiding force that determines rightness and wrongness in the world.
I like Locke’s way of thinking. Also, I don’t think the sense of wrongness we feel when hearing about a kid kidnapped and killed is just societal upbringing. But I can’t prove this. I also can’t prove I’m not dreaming either, so what the hell, right?
Mod or not, you really should practice what you preach (or at least what the site preaches).
i suppose.
I guess this means that i can not point out the faillings of your arguments. You are allowed to refer to a large group of people as idiots because of (IMO) a poor electoral process, but i am not allowed to comment on the absurdity of this argument? Particularly when you equate mistakes with idiocy, and i am not allowed to do this?
fine.
Second, this site is not college. It offers me entertainment, if it didn’t, I wouldn’t post. If it were a college paper you can be sure I would proof read everything, because than I have a grade at stake. When you vote, you have something at stake… your say on who your leaders are going to be. The people who could not master the art of punching a hole lost thier voice because they lacked the intelect to use a punch card, for something that was obviously important for them to at least go to the polls. And as a result, we have had GWB for the past 5 years. Something I am sure you don’t like.
again - people lose their voice for not mastering the art of punching a hole, but we have to take you seriously in spite of your inability to spell properly? (Also - i don’t proofread anything - i just do things properly the first time. I have never used a spell-check on this site. I also refrain from stereotyping large groups of people for mistakes - otherwise your continual voting for Bush would generate some pretty negative thoughts about Americans.)
I have noticed gramatical mistakes on this board, but I don’t mention them because they are not important. If you are suggesting that everyone post need to be term paper quality, you are not going to have anyone posting. I don’t want to proof read my own stuff much less others, and than base my reaction to what they say on a typo. I live with 2 kids who I have to do that with with thier homework, I don’t want to do it here. Should I go through all your posts looking for a typo so that it invalidates any opinion you have?
In the end, you are probably right. It does stem from a certain degree of laziness. Posting is not important enough for me to treat this board like a term paper. A laziness you are also familiar because you reduced the argument to personal insults. I will concede our mutual laziness, but I am incompetant too eh?
Again you missed the point. I simply threw your argument back at you. I did not intend to personally insult you - i can’t know for certain if you are indeed lazy/incompetant - anymore than you know this of people who voted for Gore. I just drew your argument to a (displeasing) conclusion.
Yanny… your call. You made the thread on personal attacks. What do you think?
Bring it. I could use a break.
But you have to qualify it with “based on my standards…according to me…the way my beliefs are… etc.”
yes, i would. but only if i expected argument. if people agreed, it wouldnt matter if it was my opinion or not, they share it too
Intuitively though, it just seems like some things are morally repugnant without qualification. Usually involving kids.
cultural/instinctual. parents have a natural instinct towards children for protecting them, particularly their own children, but this extends to others. and non-parent adults have the same instincts, just not their own children to place them on. instincts are biological though. they arent moral judgement, simply nature.
But you’re left with the equally unappetizing statement: “Well, I guess sometimes it’s all right to torture children for the fun of it.”
again, its only unappetizing because most cultures teach it this way, and we have natural instincts
I’m not a Christian. I just like what Christ says. I don’t believe in his divinity or anything.
oh. i thought you were, you always seemed to be. my bad
You can’t prove ethics. In the end, you have to go on intution.
yes, and my intuition is that moral absolutism is wrong. as is divinity. but dont you see, you are making a relativist argument against relativism.
Janus, we’ll probably never agree on the nature of morality. Maybe having kids has clouded my judgement ;)
thats not true at all. i can say he was a bad guy, based on my standards.
But you have to qualify it with “based on my standards…according to me…the way my beliefs are… etc.” Intuitively though, it just seems like some things are morally repugnant without qualification. Usually involving kids.
kids confuse things.
Look at Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example. A 14 y/o needs a blood transfusion to save his/her life. Because s/he is a JW, the parents (and him/her) deny this a blood transfusion. Do we respect his/her body and wishes? Or assault him/her in order to save his/her life?
