Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No. But in an open place like a restaurant, where there has been no threat of violence, and an adult clearly says he doesn't mind...
As I said I was basing that off of your words. 'meekly agreeing'... 'freightened victim'... If you want to change the scenario the right way to do so would be to say 'okay what about this new scenario?'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Here is a little sanity check. Fill in the blank here...
"It is 20 degrees Fahrenheit outside and there are four inches of snow on the ground. If my neighbor has not seen it outside today and says that they think it is 50 degrees and sunny out then __________."
A) It would be 'true for them' that it is 50 degrees outside
B) It is true that their opinion is that it is 50 degrees out but since the actual truth is that it is only 20 degrees their opinion is wrong because it does not match reality
The answer may suprise you... It's B.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
I am not sure exactly what 'strict adherence against the Prime Directive' would entail. If there is some good reason to not interact with some specific culture then not interacting with them for that hypothetical reason is perfectly consistent with my proposal of banning the Prime Directive entirely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Why would we care to make their lives better anyway?
Empathy I suppose. It is much easier to have empathy for a fellow sapient than a hill of mindless bugs. And why not help them? No point not doing so when sending them the blueprints to a primitive fission reactor costs us nothing. Sure in the Star Trek universe giving someone technology might backfire on you because they may become your enemy in the future and use that tech against you but in the real world Earthlings are going to so far surpass any primitive sapients we do come across that it won't even be funny.
Created:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Well we both agree that this OP only establishes god as a "yeah, sure maybe" kind of idea so said pursuit will have to continue elsewhere I suppose.
Created:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Very well then. I don't have any other problems with post 3, any other questions for me or are we done here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
How does one distinguish between an imagined world which is possible and an imagined world which is not possible? The world where no beings of any kind exist is not internally inconsistent, so you saying it is impossible to exist is an unfounded claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Why? Let's say they sacrificing virgins every year maybe 1 million virgins, Would that be a thing you stopped?
Sure, I would probably offer them things like nuclear technology to improve their standard of living too assuming I did not have reason to believe they would use it to wage a nuclear war among themselves.
The rest of your post is pretty well summed up by your ending quote:
We just cannot judge their morals as inferior to our own and enforce our customs of morality on them.
To which my response would be to look at you dumbfounded for a moment or two before innocently asking "And why the hell not?"
I'm not suggesting that we strongarm anyone or institute any kind of coersive policy. A policy of gradual and subtle indoctrination against the idea of sacrificing Innocents, perhaps over the period of 200 to 300 years if necessary, combined with a gradual technological uplifting to prevent unnecessary deaths from things like disease and famine and to increase their overall standard of living... That kind of thing would be expressly forbiden by the Prime Directive. And I think that is a damn shame.
Created:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Maybe we have two different definitions of "a reality"
Reality (n.) - The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
I am not a world. I am just a dude typing on a phone while cooking Ramen noodles to eat.
Reality (adj.) - The state or quality of having existence or substance
I posses the quality of having reality as an adjective but I am not a reality in and of myself as a noun.
Created:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
If you're part of a reality does that not make you real?
Yes. Obviously I am real.
And therefore a reality?
No. Again, obviously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Well that may or may not be something I consider moral depending on the circumstances (though realistically if we ever meet another alien species either they or we are going to be so outclassed that this becomes a moot point... Most likely they will be the outclassed ones)
But do you think that preventing interference is immoral? I say it is.
Created:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Do you not consider yourself a great reality than say a sims game?
I am not a reality of and kind. I am merely a middle class white boy that exists within a reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Completely agree on both counts.
Our society used to be guilty of a ridiculous black and white mentality that never helped anyone. Now most people are stuck in a red and blue mentality that is equally unhelpful and in some ways even worse.
Our society used to be guilty of a ridiculous black and white mentality that never helped anyone. Now most people are stuck in a red and blue mentality that is equally unhelpful and in some ways even worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
wrong about it is immoral though.
To clarify, you agree with me that it is stupid but you disagree with my stance that it is immoral? (I primarily think it is stupid because of how blatantly immoral it is).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you don't know my sense of humor, I'm incredibly sarcastic and cynical. Kinda ridiculing both sides, tbh. Making fun of lefty 'fat pride' and making ridiculous claims about why they would be defending terrorists as I have seen the righties do recently.
Understood. Sarcasm is notoriously difficult to detect over plain text.
I have a similar sense of humor, you will often see me refer to Democrats and Republicans as 'blue ties and red ties' so I get it now that it is pointed out. I'll try to avoid a similar misunderstanding happening in the future lol.
Created:
1) The universe at a quantum level shows properties of "emerging", that is, at fundamental level, matter behaves like information in a computer code.
Only in a metaphorical sense.
2. It is quite possible the universe is a computer simulation on an unimaginable scale
Key word: Possible (as opposed to definitely true)
3. If the universe is a computer simulation, it would require a computer simulator.
Key word: If (this claim has not been demonstrated).
6. A being outside the simulation would not be subject to it's nature, and possess another nature entirely. A being of this nature could be considered ultimate reality
Completely false. The being itself would not be a reality of any kind in this scenario. The reality in which this hypothetical being and it's simulation exists would be the higher reality here, just as if I created a simulation on my computer I myself would not be the higher reality of that simulated reality. Our reality would be.
Any thoughts? What do you agree with? What do you disagree?
The problem is that in point two you say "it is possible the universe is a simulation" (technically true, though the simulating universe would need to have a vastly different set of physical laws if this were the case) but you never justify the leap from "it is possible" to "god definitely exists".
You can't just say "maybe it is true" then turn around and say "it is definitely true" without explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
People can't 'decide for themselves' what is true, they can only decide what they think is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Goddamnit.
Any interesting people you can think of that might disagree with me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Well nevermind then, no point in debating something we agree on lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
@Barney
@oromagi
@SirAnonymous
@Singularity
Bumping this thread to see if anyone else may be interested in debating this topic, my stance is detailed in post 12.
Tagging random ppl I think may be interested and disagree with me.
Created:
Posted in:
Maybe not as transhuman as my last post but still neat looking imo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
We go by what the adult says, not by what we suspect he feels.
You aren't actually suggesting that coersion is a non-factor which we shouldn't even consider are you?
Okay so if I pull a knife on someone in an alley and they offer me their wallet and say "please take whatever you want just don't hurt me" then my mugging is morally justified in your eyes because the guy said I could take his wallet?
I am beginning to have doubts about how seriously you are taking this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The lefties will defend him because of fat pride or something, though.
I see dozens of posts every week saying 'the left defends terrorists' but - and this is odd since I also hear constant complaints about how this site is so dominated by leftist - I have yet to see anyone on here actually defending terrorists. Perhaps you could help cure my confusion by pointing me towards a few examples?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
everyone has to determine this for themselves
Lol that isn't how reality works kiddo. It isn't going to be a sunny warm day outside just because I 'determined for myself' that it should be.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
#Iwasnthashtagged
Created:
#doitagainsometimebutnexttimegivemeafewhoursadvancenoticeyoucommiebastards
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Why would that be immoral?"
Lack of consent.
If you butted in and said to the offender, "Hey Mac, why don't you get your own food?" And the victim meekly said, "I don't mind." Would the guys action in eating the food of another person's be moral?A materialist must say yes, it is moral, because to him, whether the victim is offended or not is what decides morality.
Sounds like coersion (based on your use of the word 'meekly' and your later use of the phrase 'frightened victim'). Coersion does not constitute legitimate consent. The victim is offended in this case, their unwillingness to admit so due to fear is irrelevant from a moral standpoint. I still say the action is immoral and I think you would be hard-pressed to find any materialist that disagreed with me.
I say he has still been immoral regardless of whether the frightened victim doesn't mind or not. The authority of morality is not sourced in how they feel.
Let's change the scenario a bit. Let's say that the victim legitimately does not mind this action because they are visiting from a foreign country where the culture is different and eating from another's plate without asking is perfectly normal. Nobody else present has been raised in such a culture in this scenario. My two questions for you before continuing would be:
1) If the perpetrator (let's call them Alex for ease of reference) is aware that the foreigner (let's call them Bob for ease of reference) legitimately won't mind because of their cultural upbringing then is Alex's action immoral? Explanation of your answer is optional.
2) If Alex has no knowledge of Bob's unique upbringing then is Alex's action immoral? Explanation is once again optional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
The lack of music was silly for a mind numbingly boring job.
Agree, though I heard that they are allowing it in some locations in Ohio as a test to see whether it is actually a safety/productivity concern, since those have always been the higher-ups main objections. IDK if this is actually true but I sure hope it is lol.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
Tell the peeps in there already to make it a monthly thing dawg.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
"But working hard for your paycheck is basically slavery"
Or something like that. IDK. Swag uses the term serfdom instead of slavery. Serfdom sounds more intellectual I guess.
I actually plan on trying to get an apprenticeship with the local pipe fitters union when they start recruitment next month. Wish me luck.
Created:
Nah, doesn't look like I will. No wifi and mobile data doesn't seem to be strong enough for discord.
If this is made into a regular thing and I am given a day or two of warning I will be able to take part.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
Noticed this before you even tagged me lol. Trying to see if I will be able to join now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's really a sweet deal.
Litterally didn't even ask for a resume or make me do any interviews.
I am sure you have heard of my employer before, most likely in the context of how shitty they supposedly treat their workers. It's a bunch of BS, don't believe everything you hear from the news lol.
Eh, not that I really need to say that to you of all people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What is up with the blank space you put at the end of some of your posts by pressing 'enter' a few times anyway?
Created:
Posted in:
Bug: Unable to friend self.
Please fix at earliest convenience, I am my own best friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
How old are you by the way? Your profile does not have your date of birth but I would estimate based on your posts that you are within a few years of me in age. I am fairly young myself - turning 25 in a few months - and only entered the civilian job market a bit over two years ago. I understand it can be nerve-racking when first starting off because our society is so insistant on drilling into young folks heads the blatant lie that higher education is required to be successful. In such an environment it is natural to feel like you are missing something that everyone else has but you will quickly find that the reality is our part of the world is overflowing with opportunities, you just have to be willing to put in the legwork to find and exploit said opportunities for yourself. Nobody will ever care about your success more than you do.
Created:
Posted in:
While the average worker remains more or less an average guy, hiring prerequisites have grown exponentially.
My current job puts me solidly in the top 40% of Americans by income and I only work 4 days a week, allowing plenty of extra time to work on other non-job-related moneymaking opportunities. The prerequisites for my current job were "Have a GED or higher education, pass this 10 minute reading comprehension test on the internet and show up on time a few days from now with the 40 other suckers we are hiring this week to take a drug test, do all that and you are in."
If that is the result of 'exponential growth in hiring prerequisites' then I can't imagine how easy it must have been to get a job ten years ago according to you lol.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Exactly. I say 'especially the blue ties' because it may have cost them the white house but really anyone who favors the democratic process should have been disappointed by that whole debacle, even the red ties or the no ties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Therefore, tell us when is it possible for our serial killer Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, to adhere wholly to Stevens topic?
Mopac was quoting from the chapter that this thread is talking about, kiddo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Isn't it fair to say that the rich/poor scenario must have been resultant of God's imprecise creation, rather than of a developed human failing.
Only if you believe God exists. For those that do not believe, God is blameless. Interesting then that the believer so often accuses the unbeliever of 'hating god' when the unbeliever is clearly incapable of doing so. I wonder at the psychology that makes such thinking possible. I doubt it is simple projection on the believers part. There probably is something more complicated at work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The question didn't change. It was...Can your moral code give us a moral action that is empirically "bad"?The point was to highlight the curious agreement between peoples personal tastes and their moral codes.
Okay I figured it might be a typo but was not sure. I have problems like that all the time with my autocorrect on my phone.
In answer to the question then I think the example earlier in the thread about walking up to a stranger in a restaurant and eating their food without their permission is a good example of something that everyone I can think of, myself included, would agree is an immoral act.
Does that answer your question?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well to be fair that shit pissed me off immensely despite not being a Bernie supporter. I think it should have pissed everyone off honestly, especially the blue ties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Pertaining to your quote above, then biblically please enlighten me about "some dude" ordering "some other dudes" death within the scriptures
Okay sure.
Now, I want you to perform this act using only the Bible to vouchsafe your claims, where this would take them away from simple hearsay, okay?
Alright. I will just copy paste from Like 19, since that is the chapter in question.
I will be using the NIV since that appears to be the version you used for your snippets, that shouldn't matter though since just about all the English translations say the same fucking thing and anyone who claims otherwise is being willfully obstinate. Anyone who wants to argue this point is welcome to create a debate on the topic and challenge me to it.
So, here is the text of Like 19... The underlined portion is a parable, the bolded portion is proof that the underlined portion is a parable, and all text in [brackets] is not from the Bible but instead is a side-note by me to help you understand the simplistic text despite your apparent reading disability.
1 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through.2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy.3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd.4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today."6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.[Note the quote marks above, this is not the Bible telling a story about a man of noble birth. It is a quote attributed to Jesus because he is the one telling a story. That is how words work.]13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.[Still obviously not talking about Jesus, since Jesus was never made king of anything. It would be weird for Jesus to be talking in the third person anyway. Remember these are words from Jesus not words from the Bible. I will bold all future references to 'the king', 'master', etc. within the parable for this reason, Jesus did not speak like Yoda!]16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth.21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”[The bolded portion is obviously a reference to verse 14, where the subjects of this king in this story are said to have not wanted him to rule over them].28 After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.[Note the bolded portion once again. Clearly all of the above was a quote from Jesus telling a story].29 As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them,30 “Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here.31 If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it.’”32 Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them.33 As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you untying the colt?”34 They replied, “The Lord needs it.”35 They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it.36 As he went along, people spread their cloaks on the road.37 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:38 “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”“Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!”40 “I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes.43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side.44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”45 When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling.46 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’47 Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him.48 Yet they could not find any way to do it, because all the people hung on his words.
As you can see the only crime Jesus is guilty of is stealing, or possibly borrowing without permission, some poor sods donkey. Well, according to the priests he is also guilty of blasphemy but that really isn't a crime in my book.
Now it is your turn to explain, using as you said only the Bible, exactly who Jesus supposedly ordered the deaths of and exactly why he did so, just as I did just now. Who and why. Shouldn't be too hard, assuming you are not full of shit that is lol. I tell you the who and why is explained in verse 14, as the underlined part of the chapter is obviously a parable. Well obvious to anyone with a second grade or higher reading comprehension ability anyway.
Looking forward to your hilarious response. Right now there are only two people on this site I can think of that speak so predictably that it is almost pointless to even have a conversation with them because I know almost exactly how they will respond before I even say anything to them (Mopac and crossed). So far you are looking like a good candidate for becoming the third person on that list. Let's see if you can do it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Makes sense to me. Something like this would really piss me off if I was a Bernie supporter. Pretty predictable outcome really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I have yet to see any system that has been fixed just by throwing money at it.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a single day.
Give a man a thousand fish and you feed him for a single day and leave him to clean up after the 999 fish that spoiled in the night.
- Discipulus_Didicit
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Any response to the thread topic or nah?
Created:
Posted in:
Wait, did Alec tell a joke that was actually funny?
Someone pin this thread ASAP!
Created:
Posted in:
Your question is partially answered by verse 21 of the chapter where Jesus says the rich should give everything to the poor if they seek to be perfect (though he also implies it is possible to be 'good enough' without doing so). It is not explained why Jesus values charity but then again neither are the other commandments mentioned in the chapter, such as the prohibition of divorce or theft, really given any explanation either. Just kind of a "Jesus/god said so" type of deal.
Created: