Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 69
  1. #41
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As I recall, people generally did was the authorities told them to. Why did all of those people end up in Superdome? Because they were told to go there by the authorities.
    Just to clear up some misconceptions you appear to have:

    The people in the Superdome went there because their houses were flooding and there was nowhere else to go. It wasn't a matter of "the authorities telling them to." It was a matter of survival. If you want further proof that the people in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina were most certainly *not* "orderly," numerous service and emergency vehicles and personnel came under gunfire from the residents there. The "orderly" people from the Superdome were shooting at the people trying to help them. They went from house to house, looting and robbing... raping and murdering. There was *no* order in New Orleans after Katrina. Even in the Superdome, people were nearly pulling down helicopters trying to rescue people because they were hanging on to the struts instead of waiting their turn for another helicopter to arrive.

    The aftermath of Katrina is a perfect example of how people tend toward chaos in the absence of strong leadership.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    People end up in jail for violating those laws. They often have much force behind them those who violate them suffer actual, not illusory, consequences.
    Only because one group of people who has more guns/power/numbers than the "lawbreakers" can force people to suffer penalties for breaking their "laws." It's a pure case of "might makes right."


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And likewise most people voluntarily obey them.
    Sure... some people do obey laws, but one could argue that at the root, it's because they fear the consequences of disobedience. At some point, if you take it to its natural end, the result of breaking laws is that someone stronger than you will force you to do things you don't want to do... whether it's the "government" punishing you or thugs taking your things in the absence of a government. People who understand that support *some* kind of social structure to prevent a more arbitrary one from imposing even more disagreeable rules upon them.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Laws create order.
    I think that it's more appropriate to say that laws impose order only in as far as they can be enforced, either by force or by public censure and ostracization.


    I'll leave the rest for MindTrap, since the post was addressed to him.

  2. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    The people in the Superdome went there because their houses were flooding and there was nowhere else to go. It wasn't a matter of "the authorities telling them to."
    They were evacuated to the Superdome as a designated refuge.

    "Ninety percent of the residents of southeast Louisiana were evacuated in the most successful evacuation of a major urban area in the nation's history. Despite this, many remained (mainly the elderly and poor). The Louisiana Superdome was used as a designated "refuge of last resort" for those who remained in the city."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    If you want further proof that the people in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina were most certainly *not* "orderly," numerous service and emergency vehicles and personnel came under gunfire from the residents there. The "orderly" people from the Superdome were shooting at the people trying to help them. They went from house to house, looting and robbing... raping and murdering. There was *no* order in New Orleans after Katrina.
    First off, I do not argue that chaos does not ensue when disaster strikes and civil authority has no reach into areas where disaster has struck. Again, I only challenge the chaos reigns, not that chaos exists. So whatever chaos happened in NO, eventually order was restored.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Even in the Superdome, people were nearly pulling down helicopters trying to rescue people because they were hanging on to the struts instead of waiting their turn for another helicopter to arrive.

    The aftermath of Katrina is a perfect example of how people tend toward chaos in the absence of strong leadership.
    This is not just an example of lack of strong leadership but people also put in extremely desperate circumstances. The people in Superdome lacked many of the basic necessities and were in very bad situation. Of course if you put people in a bad enough situation people will start behaving worse than if they were in a much better situation.

    That fact is not nearly enough to support the assertion that chaos reigns as a general statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Only because one group of people who has more guns/power/numbers than the "lawbreakers" can force people to suffer penalties for breaking their "laws." It's a pure case of "might makes right."
    No it's not. In a democracy, people generally support the laws they have to live by. Since I personally do not want to be victimized by violence or theft, I support the laws against those things and likewise abide by them for reasons other than I might be punished if I violate them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    People who understand that support *some* kind of social structure to prevent a more arbitrary one from imposing even more disagreeable rules upon them.
    Since every culture has some kind of social structure and no social structure, as far as the evidence shows, is imposed upon people from an outside source (in other words people impose it on themselves), the evidence seems to show that when there's enough people living together, they will create a social structure of some kind and likewise a code of law.

    And in a democracy, the people elect representatives to make their law which means ideally (although I don't believe that ideal is always met) the laws themselves are the will of the people (again, ideally). If the people actually don't want a law against theft, then the legislature, being elected by the people to do their bidding, will create no such law. So the primary reason there is a law against theft is that it is desired by most of the people that there be such a law. People desire order and impose it on themselves.

    And again, I challenge only what MindTrap is forwarding, which is that chaos reigns supreme. But individual examples of chaos within a orderly system does not make the case that chaos reigns supreme, especially when order is eventually restored.

    So to support this "Chaos reigns" argument, it will take more than individual examples of chaos (especially examples where the chaos eventually gives way to order).

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If your home town was bombed numerous times during a war, the next bomb that kills thirty of your townsfolk will be expected, but it will still be a big deal.
    Your missing the point. When it is expected, people don't lose their minds.
    When it is unexpected... People do.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But those millions died in a WAR. And you better believe getting a large-scale war going takes a lot of planning and organization. If instead, a bunch of people just went running around killing people with little rhyme or reason, you'd have a point.
    So your position is that Battle fields are pictures of Order, and there is no chaos in war?
    Your assumption is that wars go according to plan. Which I challenge you to support.
    O yea.. "winning" is not a plan, it is a goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Order was restored very quickly. Many people left the area when authorities ordered them to. Many people organized to attempt to save people trapped in the building.

    Come on, you are saying that chaos rules supreme and if you were right not only would chaos be caused by the 9/11 attacks but chaos would be sustained. But after the initial chaos, ordered was restored.

    So pointing out individual instances of temporary chaos does not show that chaos reigns supreme.
    No, I am showing that "order" is only as steadfast as the minds that conceive it.
    Outside of those minds reign chaos. Chaos is shown to never be "defeated" by human minds or plans, but rather temporarily covered, with Chaos
    still in effect just below the surface, and in fact working within and effecting every plan. (as you concede later)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I recall, people generally did was the authorities told them to. Why did all of those people end up in Superdome? Because they were told to go there by the authorities.

    That again, is an example of order more than chaos.
    This one, I will LOL at. I think your idea of Order is very, very liberal indeed.
    To the point that you are calling Chaos, Order.

    O yea.. just an FYI. The authorities were SHOOTING PEOPLE!
    Also, perhaps your idea of "shelter of last resort" is different then it was intended for the people. People were not "supposed" to go to the dome. They were "supposed" to leave the city. No "planning" was done for taking in people at the Dome.

    What you are forgetting was that people simply showed up at locations they felt was "safe". One of which was the convention center. (which was not designated as "shelter of last resort".

    Still, my point is sustained. Where there was no "law", there was Chaos.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    People end up in jail for violating those laws. They often have much force behind them those who violate them suffer actual, not illusory, consequences. And likewise most people voluntarily obey them. Laws create order.
    Sorry, but I'm callin "Bull ****".
    What written word has ever chased a man down?
    No it was human will and might that chased a criminal down. NOT THE LAW its self.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But if laws cause more order than disorder than the net effect is an increase in order.
    Not to a point of order being superior to Chaos (or even equal for that matter)
    Which is my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then I haven't argued the opposite, so this is basically a strawman.
    Then how do you call Laws order?
    And how do you say that, order is greater than the Chaos that surrounds it and exists within the "order" you argue?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I do not. When laws are written into books and people are punished under the law, the laws are real enough to be a factor in creating order.
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Support that laws exist outside of man.
    And that it is the "laws" and not man who enforce it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm quite sure that there are uniform laws against murder almost everywhere so there is some consistency between nations.
    Contradiction with your own statement.
    .. Fail.

    Consistency ALMOST EVERYWHERE =/= consistency.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, I do not argue that everything is completely orderly, but only that your statement that chaos reigns supreme is not shown to be true.
    Again a contradiction within your own point.
    Either it is Orderly, or it is not.
    If it is only partly orderly, then order is not over Chaos.
    And if Chaos is found even within order (as you are conceding by your statement). Then my point is sustained.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As far as I can see, human society contains both order and chaos and neither of them reigns supreme, but order is certainly a near-constant.
    UTTERLY FALSE.
    I have shown several cases where Chaos is the ruling factor.
    You have conceded that Human Society has both order and Chaos in it.
    No where have you shown that Order is equal to Chaos. And your claim that "order is a near-constant" is .. inherently false. "Near-constant =/= constant".. Where as by conceding that Chaos exists even within order, and certainly outside of it.
    Then CHAOS is the thing which is constant.

    My position is thus also sustained.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Please support that laws cause more chaos than order.
    It is not necessary that they cause "More than".
    The fact that it causes more, sustains my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Now as you can see, I responded to each of your points one-by-one. You did not do the same to my point-by-point, but just made an argument that apparently addressed the whole. I demand that you either address my point-by-point argument point-by-point or concede it.
    Is there something wrong with the way that I structured my argument. So that it is the case that you can not understand it?
    Or is my response in some way deficient, that I have not supported and in fact countered your conclusion to your 5 point plan?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    1. People exist
    2. People make laws
    3. Many people follow those laws
    4. Following laws is an example of order
    5. Since many people follow laws and people following laws is order, then order exists.

    So I don't see what's illusory about this.
    Tell you what, lets do it like this.
    I concede all your points. (Or do I need to put numbers in front, and repeat it 5 times?)

    Now please address my argument that the "order" and "laws" you speak of
    are illusions, and imaginary. It only exists as long as the mass delusion persists, and evaporates just as quickly.
    What is left is Chaos, and thus the ultimate reality.



    --- Conclusion
    I have shown that Chaos exists outside of every human plan. Through the examples of, when human plans vacate the area.
    When there is a vacuum of human plans, there is chaos.

    I have shown and you have conceded that, Chaos exists within human plans.

    So, Chaos is ever present and constant. There is no such thing as "ultimate order". There is however the existence of "ultimate chaos".

    Thus, my position that Chaos reigns supreme is sustained.
    To serve man.

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Incorrect. I'm saying that it is not what the "good guy" is supposed to do.
    The actual Right or Wrong of the action is beside the point.
    You seem to be implying that the "Good Guy" is supposed to ignore whether his acts are "good" or "bad" but rather to cling, inflexibly, to a code of behavior. If that is your definition, then a mass-murderer could be a "Good Guy". This isn't making sense to me, please explain.


    This is otherwise called inconsistency within a code. and Proves that it is the incorrect code.
    Flexibility =/= inconsistency when flexibility is appreciated as part of the code. Doing what is "right" and being the "good guy" frequently requires deviations from the letter of the law, the ethical "code". That doesn't lessen the importance of the "code". It just means that in some situations, certain parts of the code are more important and others are less important. I might break the speed limit to get someone to the hospital faster. I might lie in order to protect innocents from death. I might kill a man who is killing others, etc.

    Incorrect. Because we convict and punish criminals to protect the others.
    When accusing a man, we assume his innocence because that man is going to suffer when he is punished, whether or not he would have, in the future, caused any suffering to others. I pointed it out to you so you could see the difference between lying to a Nazi patrol officer, "No, I didn't see any Jews around here" and lying in a court of law. In the first example, the lie does not result in suffering, only protection. In the second case, the lie will result in suffering, of the convicted, and may or may not result in protection.


    Not necessarily..
    do I really need to run down some examples?
    Because "Knowing" is one thing, and "Proving to a court of law" is another.
    I stated that lying could be ethical and "Good", contrary to your assumption in the OP. I have given examples of how this works. I pointed out that your court case example is not a counter-example, because lying in court is perjury and if you "know" that someone is guilty, then you don't have to "lie". You just tell the truth about what you know. Maybe that doesn't guarantee that they are convicted, but lying doesn't make that guarantee, either. In fact, it greatly increases the chances that your testimony will be disregarded.

    My secondary response took that into account.
    How so?

    Think about this for a moment, because this is where you go wrong.
    It is either True or False, that Germans should kill Jews.

    If it is false, then the lie is justified in light of the greater truth.
    If it is true, then that makes the lier a "bad guy".
    "Where I go wrong", indeed. Here you are essentially agreeing with me that deviating from "truth" and favoring non-maleficence (do no harm) is the correct moral act in this situation. I don't think we should leap to the conclusion that an individual is capable of determining "higher truths" without any framework, that one simply "knows" what should and should not happen. This makes the process of arriving at ethical decisions arbitrary and prone to error, especially when things are not so clear or when one is asked to sacrifice. A person can always claim they were following some "truth" or another, whatever is most convenient for them at the time.

    The reason real moral and ethical codes are complicated and multi-faceted, instead of simple, like, "follow the highest truth" is to make certain that there is a systematic method for determining what is right, without conveniently overlooking something we might want to overlook.

    The "moral" that makes the person a "good guy" is fighting for the greater truth.
    Fighting for some grand truth sounds noble. Hitler thought he was doing that, too. When in doubt, I think it's better to surrender "truth" and accept, humbly, our own limitations in knowing.

    Yes it is.. per above.
    If it is not, then you allow "Good guys" to stand for a Lie.
    Trying to defend one lie over another without a greater truth, will only result in special pleading and fallacious reasoning.
    The concept of "good guys" and "bad guys" is an oversimplification. In my experience, people never fit perfectly into those molds. And even if the hero of the story is tempted and falters, this just makes them easier to relate to. One error does not define them.

    Similarly, your talk of defending "lies" and "greater truths" sounds overly simplistic to me. What "lie" is not sometimes true? What "truth" is not sometimes a lie?



    Support
    1) That the joker has "Blind allegiance"
    2) That "Blind Allegiance" is inherently unethical.
    It was you who proposed that the Joker's blind allegiance to the truth of Chaos is what made him the "good guy". Why are you having me support your claims?

    It is my claim that this "blind allegiance" to truth is inherently unethical. It is quite simple to prove. Pick a "truth", any truth, and I will show you a situation in which it fails. This is why blind allegiance to "truth" is an inappropriate approach to ethics.

    Challenge to support a claim.
    Support that there is an absolute ethic that governs all which says "blowing up hospitals is wrong".
    I was referring to the Joker's act of blowing up a hospital full of people and similar acts. Blowing up a hospital that has been abandoned in order to make way for a new and improved hospital, is ethical.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your missing the point. When it is expected, people don't lose their minds.
    When it is unexpected... People do.
    "lose their minds", to me, means that they go insane. And the reality is they do not go insane. As an example (and this is a true story) I know a guy who was at ground zero during the 9/11 attack and he basically dove under a truck when the debris from the second building fell around him, literally praying for his life. He was terrified but his sanity held so he didn't "lose his mind".

    And while "lose their minds" can mean something other than literal insanity, the only way that phrase would equate to "chaos reigns supreme" would indicate that we are talking about literal insanity.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So your position is that Battle fields are pictures of Order, and there is no chaos in war?
    There is both chaos and order on the battlefield. And even in the most chaotic of battles, a soldier is more likely to attack an enemy than attack an ally, so even that amount of order is present. If a battle was pure chaos, a soldier would be just as likely to attack a friend as an enemy.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, I am showing that "order" is only as steadfast as the minds that conceive it. Outside of those minds reign chaos
    There is likewise order in nature. Just like people, animal species also have social structures and hierarchy (some species anyway).

    And regardless, people do generally live in a semblance of order with chaos being something that occasionally interrupts the order, but it never takes over forever. In human affairs, chaos is a factor - even a constant, but it does not reign supreme.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Chaos is shown to never be "defeated" by human minds or plans, but rather temporarily covered, with Chaos
    still in effect just below the surface, and in fact working within and effecting every plan. (as you concede later)
    Heck, I'll concede that right now. Let's remember what I'm challenging. I'm challenging your statement that chaos reigns. It does not reign. It is the yin to the yang of order and within human affairs both exist and at best it can be shown that they are equals and neither, in the realm of human affairs, will conquer the other and "reign supreme". Except in the rarest and most temporary of circumstances has all system of human order collapses.

    The constant of chaos shows that order does not reign supreme just as the constant of order shows that chaos does not reign supreme.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    People were not "supposed" to go to the dome. They were "supposed" to leave the city. No "planning" was done for taking in people at the Dome.
    And 90% of the people did leave the city so a majority did what they were suppose to do. Again, the disaster and the reaction was a combination of order and chaos.

    If it was pure order, everything would have gone perfectly (and it did not) and if it was pure chaos, everything would have gone wrong and a majority would not have made it out of the city (which likewise did not happen).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sorry, but I'm callin "Bull ****".
    What written word has ever chased a man down?
    No it was human will and might that chased a criminal down. NOT THE LAW its self.
    THE LAW ITSELF is what caused a man to chase another man down.

    I frankly don't see the relevance of whether the law is "imaginary" or not. If something "imaginary" creates order, then order is created.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then how do you call Laws order?
    And how do you say that, order is greater than the Chaos that surrounds it and exists within the "order" you argue?
    I say laws create order. And really, it's humans that create order because they desire order and they use the concept of the law to aid them in creating order within their society. So if you want to discount laws as "imaginary" and remove it from the equation, then we just say laws are tools used by humans to create order and it's humans, not laws, that create order.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Support that laws exist outside of man.
    And that it is the "laws" and not man who enforce it.
    Considering that I not have forwarded such arguments, I decline the challenge.

    Man makes laws and due to men generally agreeing to live by such laws, many volunteer to obey them and many take on the task of enforcing them. This is, by definition, order. Yes, laws are concepts, which I assume is what you mean by saying they are "imaginary" but regardless they are a tool that aid in creating order.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Contradiction with your own statement.
    .. Fail.

    Consistency ALMOST EVERYWHERE =/= consistency.
    Nit-picking terms is not much of a rebuttal so this FAILS as a rebuttal. So I will repeat my point.

    With perhaps minor exceptions, societies generally all have laws against murder so there is a lot of consistency in laws between nations.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If it is only partly orderly, then order is not over Chaos.
    And if Chaos is found even within order (as you are conceding by your statement). Then my point is sustained.
    No, "found within" is not the same as "reigns Supreme". I mean if I get a chocolate vanilla swirl ice cream cone (where one flavor is found within the other), I would not say that either flavor reigns supreme.

    Are you misunderstanding my argument? ALL I'M SAYING is that chaos does not reign supreme. I am not arguing that order reigns supreme. So if they are combined (with one under the surface of the other), then neither of them reign supreme.

    And therefore chaos does not reign supreme and therefore your position that it does reign supreme is incorrect.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    UTTERLY FALSE.
    I have shown several cases where Chaos is the ruling factor.
    You have conceded that Human Society has both order and Chaos in it.
    No where have you shown that Order is equal to Chaos. And your claim that "order is a near-constant" is .. inherently false. "Near-constant =/= constant".. Where as by conceding that Chaos exists even within order, and certainly outside of it.
    Then CHAOS is the thing which is constant.
    But your argument is chaos reigns supreme which means that chaos, in human affairs, overshadows order. And I do not consider chaos just being under the surface of order to be "reigning supreme". IT is an observable fact that there is a lot of order within this society and what I would call total chaos (like a riot or large-scale disaster) is the exception, not the rule.

    So turning the notion that there's chaos just under the surface of order into chaos reigning supreme is an incredible stretch of terms.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is not necessary that they cause "More than".
    The fact that it causes more, sustains my point.
    No. If something creates less chaos over all (by creating more order than chaos), then it not only creates "less than", it creates "less".

    You can't create more order without simultaneously creating less chaos (assuming they are polar opposites which I assume is a given in this debate).




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Is there something wrong with the way that I structured my argument. So that it is the case that you can not understand it?
    Or is my response in some way deficient, that I have not supported and in fact countered your conclusion to your 5 point plan?
    As I said, a point-by-point argument deserves a point-by-point response. I think there's some honest misunderstanding on your part because if you look at my previous response, I did respond directly after point 1, then I responded directly after point 2 and so on. And I was asking that you do the same with my point-by-point argument or concede the whole. And you conceded the whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Tell you what, lets do it like this.
    I concede all your points. (Or do I need to put numbers in front, and repeat it 5 times?)
    No, a general concession will do. But now you have conceded that laws create order so that is now a GIVEN in this debate until you do counter that argument point-by-point.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Now please address my argument that the "order" and "laws" you speak of
    are illusions, and imaginary. It only exists as long as the mass delusion persists, and evaporates just as quickly.
    What is left is Chaos, and thus the ultimate reality.
    Except that reality shows that order does not "evaporate" completely. Even if a state of pure societal chaos is reached on occasion (and as I argue below pure societal chaos is never actually reached), it does not last for long and eventually some form of order is restored.

    If pure chaos in human affairs is at best at temporary thing, it is not the ultimate reality.

    I would say that humans, being social creatures (which is necessary for survival) need order to survive and therefore as long as there are humans working in groups, there will be some semblance of order and to basically get rid of all order within humans dealings basically requires getting rid of all humans. But then if all humans die, then both order and chaos, as they relate to human affairs, dies with the humans and neither reigns Supreme.

    In other words, a desire for order (regardless of whether it is achieved through laws or by some other kind of agreement between people) creates order and as desire for order appears to be something innate to humans (as cooperation is apparently needed for survival), order is a near-constant and apparently will never, ever disappear from the human race short of the human race disappearing.

    So I see no basis for the claim that chaos reigns supreme in human affairs. It's a constant, but it does not overrule order in general.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, Chaos is ever present and constant. There is no such thing as "ultimate order". There is however the existence of "ultimate chaos".
    Really? Please define "ultimate chaos" in terms of human affairs (which is where we are limiting our debate). The New Orleans disaster was chaotic only in comparison to how things normally go, but it is not an example of ultimate chaos but an example of relative chaos. The Superdome was where people decided to go because they thought it was a safe location. If there was indeed ultimate chaos, people would go to completely random destinations (even out to sea). Looters would be just as like to grab pieces of yarn as they would things that have financial worth (so they likewise bought into the order of the financial world where things have societally-accepted value).

    So please give me a REAL example of "ultimate chaos" in human affairs (as opposed to "relative chaos"). I would consider ultimate chaos in human affairs to be a group of people doing completely random things with no concern for others or their own safety but I've never heard of this happening so I think "ultimate chaos" has never happened in humans and probably never will.
    Last edited by mican333; October 5th, 2009 at 12:30 PM.

  6. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by ZORAK
    You seem to be implying that the "Good Guy" is supposed to ignore whether his acts are "good" or "bad" but rather to cling, inflexibly, to a code of behavior. If that is your definition, then a mass-murderer could be a "Good Guy". This isn't making sense to me, please explain.
    What is "good" is very subjective, and I'm not trying to argue if something is "good".
    However, "good guy" is a defined thing. As defined "Good guys" stand for the truth.

    If a "mass-murder" stood for truth, then yes.. He would be "The good guy".
    After all, the only difference between the "mass-murder" Hitler, and the "Mass-murder" Harry Truman, is that one is perceived to be standing for truth.

    I'm not going to respond point by point to the rest of your post.
    Because You have missed my point completely.

    The Good Guy can only abandon one truth, for a greater one.
    He doesn't lie to the Nazi officer so that he can stand for a lie. He lies because he is standing for a greater truth.

    The fact that you are arguing that lesser truths can be abandoned for greater truths, is to support my case. Because the Joker stands for the greatest truth (chaos), and all others are (in line with your argument) justly sacrificed.


    Quote Originally Posted by ZORAK
    Here you are essentially agreeing with me that deviating from "truth" and favoring non-maleficence (do no harm) is the correct moral act in this situation.
    Not at all. I was simply responding and using your argument to prove my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZORAK
    Fighting for some grand truth sounds noble. Hitler thought he was doing that, too. When in doubt, I think it's better to surrender "truth" and accept, humbly, our own limitations in knowing.
    That is all well and good, but that is not what "the Good guy" stands for.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZORAK
    It was you who proposed that the Joker's blind allegiance to the truth of Chaos is what made him the "good guy". Why are you having me support your claims?
    I never said he had blind allegiance.. You did.
    It is your claim so you better support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZORAK
    It is my claim that this "blind allegiance" to truth is inherently unethical. It is quite simple to prove. Pick a "truth", any truth, and I will show you a situation in which it fails. This is why blind allegiance to "truth" is an inappropriate approach to ethics.
    You have not supported your claim.
    Rather you have repeated it.

    Defend it with logical support, retract it, or don't continue with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZORAK
    I was referring to the Joker's act of blowing up a hospital full of people and similar acts. Blowing up a hospital that has been abandoned in order to make way for a new and improved hospital, is ethical.
    Again, you have not supported your claim.
    Support, retract.. or do not continue to use it.

    -----------

    First, a public apology for my snarkyness.
    You still love me?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And while "lose their minds" can mean something other than literal insanity, the only way that phrase would equate to "chaos reigns supreme" would indicate that we are talking about literal insanity.
    I had inserted the definition as I was intending it ... somewhere.
    But it wasn't "insanity" per say, that I intended.

    I'll have to go back and see how I worded it specifically if it is a real issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The constant of chaos shows that order does not reign supreme just as the constant of order shows that chaos does not reign supreme.
    This is where your argument is flawed. You have not shown that Order is a constant.
    If you can not show that Order is a constant, then it can not be said to be an equal of Chaos.
    We agree that Chaos is a constant, so Chaos is greater than Order.


    I also see that "reigning supreme" is your specific challenge.
    When I say it reigns supreme, I say it reigns supreme as the ultimate truth.

    I also mean that it is or will win over Order. Like the example of the House.
    Order puts it up, but chaos inevitable takes it down.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    THE LAW ITSELF is what caused a man to chase another man down.

    I frankly don't see the relevance of whether the law is "imaginary" or not. If something "imaginary" creates order, then order is created.
    Your point was that "Law is order"(or an example of it), by me showing that "law is imaginary" then I am showing that "order is imaginary".
    So then Chaos is real, and order is imaginary.

    That is the relevance.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    In other words, a desire for order (regardless of whether it is achieved through laws or by some other kind of agreement between people) creates order and as desire for order appears to be something innate to humans (as cooperation is apparently needed for survival), order is a near-constant and apparently will never, ever disappear from the human race short of the human race disappearing.
    O.K. let me bounce this off of you for a moment.

    -- Individual order

    Order (for the purpose of the argument) can be summed up with "purpose". Now in this you are correct that order then becomes a sort of constant. In that where there is a human, there is a purpose that originates within that person.

    So at an individual level, it would appear that "Order" is winning.
    However, when one considers where that individual order comes from, the ultimate cause for it can not be said to be ordered or purposed.
    But where does that individual order come from? It is thought, but if the thought is not "Purposed" then it is chaos that produces the thought.
    So not even individual thought is an example of "order", because what we think is purposed, is the result of nothing more than the way things just so happen to be (chaos).
    We then are all agents of Chaos, suffering from the self delusion of imposing "order" onto a chaotic existence.

    -- social order
    Social order is simply the interaction of multiple "individual" order. I was specifically addressing this before, with my argument of how "Laws are an illusion/ OR imaginary".
    Of course because social order is built on the ultimate chaotic roots of individual order, then it to fails. However it fails in another way as well.
    In that there is no constant law. Without a law that governs all, then there is no specific "order". That in it's self is a picture of Chaos. Because multiple order is not order at all.


    This is why order (specifically individual order), is an illusion. Order doesn't really exist, we simply label the current state of Chaos "order". Chaos doesn't have to be a specific way, it simply is.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So please give me a REAL example of "ultimate chaos" in human affairs (as opposed to "relative chaos"). I would consider ultimate chaos in human affairs to be a group of people doing completely random things with no concern for others or their own safety but I've never heard of this happening so I think "ultimate chaos" has never happened in humans and probably never will.
    This is where our debate will probably focus, as I have presented my reasoning from above.
    I will abandon trying to explain specific examples because I no longer think it necessary.

    My main point is that what you are doing IS random. Unless it's ultimate origin can be found to be "purposed".
    To serve man.

  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Is it the truth that bad guys Exist? So should the good guy stand for the bad Guy? In other words, I think you are taking out of context what superman said. Good guys stand for what is truthfully right.
    Udabindu yathāpi pokkhare
    Padume vāri yathā na lippati,
    Evaṃ muni no palippati
    Yadidaṃ diṭṭhasutaṃ mutesu vā.

  8. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    Is it the truth that bad guys Exist?
    Yes, we have it wrong though and generally call them "good guys". Such as superman.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    In other words, I think you are taking out of context what superman said. Good guys stand for what is truthfully right.
    Yes, and in truth, the only right person is those who stand for chaos.
    To serve man.

  9. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, we have it wrong though and generally call them "good guys". Such as superman.
    But the point was that if it is the truth that bad guys exist, then the good guys stand for the bad guys. But if the good guys stand for the bad guys, then the bad guys become the good guys, but the because they are the good guys....it becomes paradoxical.

    Did I trap you're mind?

    Yes, and in truth, the only right person is those who stand for chaos.
    I apologize for any inconvenience but can you explain why chaos is the truth? (I don't mind if you quote.) And I disagree that good guys stand for the 'truth' in the context you are speaking of.
    Udabindu yathāpi pokkhare
    Padume vāri yathā na lippati,
    Evaṃ muni no palippati
    Yadidaṃ diṭṭhasutaṃ mutesu vā.

  10. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    But the point was that if it is the truth that bad guys exist, then the good guys stand for the bad guys. But if the good guys stand for the bad guys, then the bad guys become the good guys, but the because they are the good guys....it becomes paradoxical.

    Did I trap you're mind?
    Afraid not. Those bars in front of you.... they are keeping you in, not me

    What is happening is that you are getting caught up in the words. If you stat trying to shift the meaning of them, then you are changing who they are describing, without changing those that are described.

    So, when we say The good guys is said to stand for "truth, Justice, and the American way" (such is the slogan for Super man, the model "good-guy/hero).

    But we ask, "what is truth?" And in answering that we discover (as I argue here), that it is not superman and his ilk, that are described by the word. Instead, it is those that we generally define as "villains" Specifically in this case The Joker (Whom I played in this thread).



    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    I apologize for any inconvenience but can you explain why chaos is the truth? (I don't mind if you quote.) And I disagree that good guys stand for the 'truth' in the context you are speaking of.
    It is very simple. The claim is that Chaos is the ultimate truth. If one wants to be called "good guy", then he must stand for that truth. The reason it is the ultimate truth is because it's opposite is order. Order implies purpose. Without purpose there is only chaos. The universe has no inherent purpose (it simply is). Therefore the universe is fundamentally chaotic.

    As for "truth in that context". I have no idea of truth in any other context. Truth is what is true. If there is an ultimate truth, than things which assume the opposite of that ultimate truth, are fundamentally and ultimately wrong.
    To serve man.

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Afraid not. Those bars in front of you.... they are keeping you in, not me

    What is happening is that you are getting caught up in the words. If you stat trying to shift the meaning of them, then you are changing who they are describing, without changing those that are described.

    So, when we say The good guys is said to stand for "truth, Justice, and the American way" (such is the slogan for Super man, the model "good-guy/hero).

    But we ask, "what is truth?" And in answering that we discover (as I argue here), that it is not superman and his ilk, that are described by the word. Instead, it is those that we generally define as "villains" Specifically in this case The Joker (Whom I played in this thread).
    So we try to discover what is truth. Here is what happens:
    1. It is the truth that bad guys exist
    2. Good guys stand for the truth
    3. Good guys stand for the bad guys
    4. But all things the good guys stand for is also right (morally).
    5. Therefore the bad guys are right (morally)
    6. Because the bad guys are right (morally) they are now the good guys.

    Which is why the assumption "Good guys stand for the truth" is self defeating.



    It is very simple. The claim is that Chaos is the ultimate truth. If one wants to be called "good guy", then he must stand for that truth. The reason it is the ultimate truth is because it's opposite is order. Order implies purpose. Without purpose there is only chaos. The universe has no inherent purpose (it simply is). Therefore the universe is fundamentally chaotic.
    Why does order imply purpose, and what if the purpose is the 'truth'. Justice serves a purpose, so then this means that the good guys don't serve justice. Once again, assuming the good guys stand for the 'truth' in the context you are speaking of is self-defeating.

    (Truth=what is, but if there is not chaos, then they don't stand for that...)

    What it means when they say they stand for the 'truth' is that they stand for what is truthfully morally right. For example:
    Some people considered slavery morally right. But the good guy realizes that truthfully, it is actually not.
    Udabindu yathāpi pokkhare
    Padume vāri yathā na lippati,
    Evaṃ muni no palippati
    Yadidaṃ diṭṭhasutaṃ mutesu vā.

  12. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    So we try to discover what is truth. Here is what happens:
    1. It is the truth that bad guys exist
    2. Good guys stand for the truth
    3. Good guys stand for the bad guys
    4. But all things the good guys stand for is also right (morally).
    5. Therefore the bad guys are right (morally)
    6. Because the bad guys are right (morally) they are now the good guys.

    Which is why the assumption "Good guys stand for the truth" is self defeating.
    #3 is where you go wrong. Good guys do not stand for the bad guys.
    What is happening is you are mislabeling the characters, and creating a false contradiction.

    1) It is true that the Joker exists, and super man exists. (at least as fictional characters)
    2) "Good guys" are supposed to stand for truth.
    3) The Joker stands for truth, superman does not.
    4) All things Superman stands for is illusion (and the joker would say delusional)
    5) Therefore the Joker is the only one that stands for "truth" and is thus labeled "Good Guy".
    6) to the extent that Superman fights against the joker, he is fighting against 'truth", and is thus correctly labeled "Bad guy".


    There is no "self defeating" in it. It is a labeling problem.
    superman is mistakenly labeled "good guy", and that leads to self contradictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    Why does order imply purpose, and what if the purpose is the 'truth'.
    If you want to appeal to god, that is fine.


    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    (Truth=what is, but if there is not chaos, then they don't stand for that...)
    That is the thing, there is only chaos. The "order" we try to impose is an imagination of ourselves and does not exist in
    reality. (or separate from our minds).

    Suppose I stack two stones one on top of the other. I say "that is how those stones should be". Even if the entire world agreed, there is
    nothing inherent in the stones which imply they SHOULD be stacked. I haven't "Imposed" order where there was none, I have projected order where
    there is none.

    Such is the case with all laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    What it means when they say they stand for the 'truth' is that they stand for what is truthfully morally right. For example:
    Some people considered slavery morally right. But the good guy realizes that truthfully, it is actually not.
    Unless you want to appeal to God and an ultimate moral law giver. Then it simply isn't the case that an overall "aught" exists.
    Without this "ought" or "purpose", that exists separate from us. then our "purposes" are delusional.

    -Irony-.. this makes the "joker" the only Sane person, and superman is actually the one who is "insane".
    To serve man.

  13. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    • 1) It is the case that the “Good guy” stands for truth. Those against “Truth” are “Bad Guys”.
    • 2) Chaos is the ultimate truth. (Without humans and their plans, all that would be is chaos).
    • 3) Thus The joker is the “Good guy”, and Batman is the “bad guy”.


    Defense

    1) Good Guys stand for truth.
    I offer the example of Super man. Who is the ultimate “Good guy” (normally), and who’s known to stand for “Truth, Justice, and the American way”

    2) chaos as the ultimate truth
    Chaos is the state of disorder. Disorder is a condition in which things are not in their expected places. Without a “Plan” or a “purpose” for the universe, (concepts that would imply God), there is no “expected” place for anything. Things just are where they are. There is no “aught” in such a universe.

    Also a side note. Chaos is also defined as “the formless and disordered state of matter before the creation of the cosmos”. So at any rate, Chaos is (by definition) our origin. Making Chaos the ultimate truth.
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ition&ct=title
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ition&ct=title

    3) Conclusion
    The joker stood for Chaos, and fought against those with plans. While Batman fought against the natural state of the universe, by standing for those who had plans. Thus, The joker was standing for the ultimate truth of the universe, while Batman stood against “The Truth”.


    *Bonus Question*
    If this argument were to be sustained, what effect would it have on the moral standards of Atheists?

    There's a certain amount of incoherence when you talk about expectations. If Chaos is the natural order of things, then by imposing order, Batman is putting things in places that shouldn't be expected, and perhaps should be thought of as being chaotic on a higher order than Joker, who is only preserving the chaotic status quo.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  14. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE
    There's a certain amount of incoherence when you talk about expectations. If Chaos is the natural order of things, then by imposing order, Batman is putting things in places that shouldn't be expected, and perhaps should be thought of as being chaotic on a higher order than Joker, who is only preserving the chaotic status quo.
    You can't be Chaotic at a higher level things in place A or B don't matter. See the joker fundamentally gets that, and fights to show people that truth. On the other hand, batman fights against the joker (making him a bad-guy by opposites), and he stands against chaos by saying things SHOULDN'T be one way or another.

    specifically in regards to "shouldn't be expected" --- it is not about Our expectations, it is about the fact that our expectations are illusionary. Bat-man does not hold that one illusion is just as good as another (that is why he is so serious), and the joker isn't fighting for an illusion but the "TRUTH".
    To serve man.

  15. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Okay Mindtrap the premise I disagree with is:

    1) Good Guys stand for truth.
    I offer the example of Super man. Who is the ultimate “Good guy” (normally), and who’s known to stand for “Truth, Justice, and the American way”
    For several reasons:

    1. Adequate support has not been shown. I could just as easily make a fictional character that is a good guy who says that he doesn't stand for truth.

    2. It is self defeating for reasons I have shown that you have not addressed directly, rather, you have redirected me towards the argument in the OP.

    3. Even if a good guy did say he stood for the truth I would believe that either;
    a) They are mistaken. Good guys aren't omniscient.
    b) They mean it in a different context than the one you are assuming in the OP. And I have provided support for a different use of the word 'Truth' which you didn't directly confront. You merely said that we, the atheists, aren't allowed to appeal to 'good'. Because in order for there to be a 'good', there needs to be a God. Well guess what? My opinion on what is 'good' can be in line with the 'good' guy.....That is why I consider him a 'good' guy! Saying that an atheists cannot appeal to good immediately destroys the foundation the OP was built -there can be good guys.

    A few other things:

    1. There have been atheists who have argued for an absolute morality code, appealing to god is not required to say there is one. Theists don't have a monopoly on morality.

    2. A good guy may also believe in a god. The 'truth' he supports is one of his own religious beliefs. Point is: we can appeal to a god, as long as the good guy in question is a theist. We appeal to his beliefs.

    (That last one seems flaky, but I am convinced on the others.)
    Last edited by Soren; December 31st, 2010 at 11:52 AM.
    Udabindu yathāpi pokkhare
    Padume vāri yathā na lippati,
    Evaṃ muni no palippati
    Yadidaṃ diṭṭhasutaṃ mutesu vā.

  16. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    1. Adequate support has not been shown. I could just as easily make a fictional character that is a good guy who says that he doesn't stand for truth.
    You are free to deny the premise. I do not intend to support it as it is a conversation killer.

    I figure the converse "Good guys intentional stand for lies" to be the antitheses of our idea of "good".

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    2. It is self defeating for reasons I have shown that you have not addressed directly, rather, you have redirected me towards the argument in the OP.
    I don't believe your self defeating claim stands because it rests on mis-identification, and equivocation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    3. Even if a good guy did say he stood for the truth I would believe that either;
    I think you mean to say you "wouldn't" believe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    3. Even if a good guy did say he stood for the truth I would believe that either;
    this is not so much an argument about what the good guys stand for, but how we judge if we are correctly calling them the good guy.
    For example you are correct they are not omniscient and can be wrong. Super man can try to stand for truth, but be deceived. that would make him "wrong".
    and inadvertently fighting for evil. As long as he opposes a real "good guy", then he is correctly labeled "bad guy". (even if he is a likable bad guy).

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    b) They mean it in a different context than the one you are assuming in the OP. And I have provided support for a different use of the word 'Truth' which you didn't directly confront. You merely said that we, the atheists, aren't allowed to appeal to 'good'. Because in order for there to be a 'good', there needs to be a God. Well guess what? My opinion on what is 'good' can be in line with the 'good' guy.....That is why I consider him a 'good' guy! Saying that an atheists cannot appeal to good immediately destroys the foundation the OP was built -there can be good guys.
    Challenge to support a claim.
    Support the claim that an "moral law that applies to all" exists.
    without (as you say can be done) appealing to God.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    1. There have been atheists who have argued for an absolute morality code, appealing to god is not required to say there is one. Theists don't have a monopoly on morality.
    .. .polity.
    so what. there are people who argue all sorts of things. they are required to be correct in order for your objection to stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    2. A good guy may also believe in a god. The 'truth' he supports is one of his own religious beliefs. Point is: we can appeal to a god, as long as the good guy in question is a theist. We appeal to his beliefs.

    (That last one seems flaky, but I am convinced on the others.)
    This goes back to the "good guy" being deceived. Assuming there is no God in reality. Such a "good guy" would be deceived and be fighting for a lie.
    In which case he would better be described as the "bad guy".
    To serve man.

  17. #57
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are free to deny the premise.
    I asked you to support it. I still haven't seen that.
    I do not intend to support it as it is a conversation killer.
    You don't intend to support a major premise in your argument....because it would be a conversation killer? Well if we can do that then I will start 40 different arguments disproving god, but never support the premises! Only because they are conversation killers.

    I figure the converse "Good guys intentional stand for lies" to be the antitheses of our idea of "good".
    They may not stand for lies. But that is not because lies don't convey the truth. They don't stand for lies because (they think) lying is morally bad. I am sure a good guy would support some white-lies.

    I don't believe your self defeating claim stands because it rests on mis-identification, and equivocation.
    Challenge to support a claim.
    I will repeat my argument in your own terms, substituting some words (for the first 2 at least):
    1) It is true that evil exists, and super man exists. (at least as fictional characters)
    2) "Good guys" are supposed to stand for truth.
    3) Therefore Superman stands for evil existing, because it is the truth that it exists.
    4. All things Good guys stand for are good things.
    5. Therefore evil is a good thing
    Logical contradiction.
    I think you mean to say you "wouldn't" believe it.
    My apologies.

    Challenge to support a claim.
    Support the claim that an "moral law that applies to all" exists.
    without (as you say can be done) appealing to God.
    Let me rephrase what I wrote there.
    They use the word 'truth' in a different context than the one you are assuming in the OP.
    The second longer written out point was:
    If we cannot assume that there is an overall 'ought', then there is no such thing as 'good'. Because of this there can also not be a good guy, which destroys a premise the OP was built on.
    Udabindu yathāpi pokkhare
    Padume vāri yathā na lippati,
    Evaṃ muni no palippati
    Yadidaṃ diṭṭhasutaṃ mutesu vā.

  18. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    I asked you to support it. I still haven't seen that.
    Well, I have pointed to Superman as the Model ideal "good guy". The ideas he stands for etc.
    If you reject that as a valid basis, or reject it as an untrue depiction of ideas supporting "good guy" status.
    Then I just don't see the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    You don't intend to support a major premise in your argument....because it would be a conversation killer? Well if we can do that then I will start 40 different arguments disproving god, but never support the premises! Only because they are conversation killers.
    Well, it isn't as though I haven't offered reasons for the premise. You are simply rejecting them.

    If you are going to say you reject primes that superman is an accurate portrait of the "ultimate?" or at least "typical" "good guy".
    Then I just can't argue with that. This is not a real "objection" you have simply stated that you are not convinced.

    If you would like to defeat that point, then point to a character fictional or real, that stands for "Lies". I would say that is a great challenge. Now you said you could create one, but that doesn't really address my point, because what I have forwarded is that superman is what is typically considered and accepted as "good guy" based on the things he stands for "truth" being chief.
    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    They may not stand for lies. But that is not because lies don't convey the truth. They don't stand for lies because (they think) lying is morally bad. I am sure a good guy would support some white-lies.
    I know I have addressed this point somewhere in this thread already.. I'd have to go back.

    Yes, guys like superman wouldn't "lie". Some "flawed" good guys would tell "white-lies". Still, the reason they would not do such things is because
    of another "lie" which is morality. There is no "single" morality to appeal to. Only other self delusions. or .. another lie. Thus guys like superman appeal to a Lie, and perpetuate it. Thus, they are best described as "bad guys".

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    3) Therefore Superman stands for evil existing, because it is the truth that it exists.
    4. All things Good guys stand for are good things.
    5. Therefore evil is a good thing
    There is no logical link between 4 & 5. Also, superman doesn't stand for evil existing. He stands against the existence of what he calls "evil". But what he calls evil is actually "good" (because it is chaos, and it reflects the ultimate truth). therefore he is best described as the "bad guy".


    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    Let me rephrase what I wrote there.
    They use the word 'truth' in a different context than the one you are assuming in the OP.
    The second longer written out point was:
    If we cannot assume that there is an overall 'ought', then there is no such thing as 'good'. Because of this there can also not be a good guy, which destroys a premise the OP was built on.
    This is not a thread about the existence of "good and evil". this is a thread based on who SHOULD be called a good guy, and who should be called a bad guy given a proper view of what is going on. If you would like to appeal to "good" then you will have to establish that an objective morality exists by which we can judge one to be "good" and one to be "evil". You will note that the standard I have used is not based on Morality, but generally accepted definition of what characteristics a "good guy" represents, and what characteristics a 'bad guy" possesses.
    To serve man.

  19. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I have pointed to Superman as the Model ideal "good guy". The ideas he stands for etc.
    If you reject that as a valid basis, or reject it as an untrue depiction of ideas supporting "good guy" status.
    Then I just don't see the point.
    You don't see the point?.....really? You don't see the point in pointing out that a fictional character is not a real example? Also,
    Challenge to support a claim. That Superman is the accurate portrait of a good guy

    Well, it isn't as though I haven't offered reasons for the premise. You are simply rejecting them.
    Let's look at what was said:
    Mindtrap:You are free to deny the premise. I do not intend to support it as it is a conversation killer.

    What support have you shown that good guys stand for the truth? Other than superman, you just said "reasons."
    If you are going to say you reject primes that superman is an accurate portrait of the "ultimate?" or at least "typical" "good guy".
    Then I just can't argue with that. This is not a real "objection" you have simply stated that you are not convinced.
    Are you being serious right now Mindtrap? A fictional character is not adequate support!
    If you would like to defeat that point, then point to a character fictional or real, that stands for "Lies".
    I was merely saying that if they didn't stand for lies, then it is not necessarily because they support the truth.
    I would say that is a great challenge. Now you said you could create one, but that doesn't really address my point
    Hmm, funny that you say that. First, we can appeal to Superman even though he was fictional and was created, but then.........when I do it, it doesn't "address the point." Special pleading.
    because what I have forwarded is that superman is what is typically considered and accepted as "good guy" based on the things he stands for "truth" being chief.
    1. Appeal to popularity to say that he is the most commonly accepted "good guy"
    2. He could have been mistaken when he though he stood for the truth
    3. The truth he was standing for, might have been a god. Was Superman a theist? Well if he was, then we are appealing to different 'truths'.
    I know I have addressed this point somewhere in this thread already.. I'd have to go back.
    Please.
    Yes, guys like superman wouldn't "lie".
    Question: Does this make my butt look fat? Superman (not wanting to hurt my feelings): No, not at all.........

    That is what a white lie is, and I don't see any reason why Superman wouldn't stand for that.*
    Some "flawed" good guys would tell "white-lies". Still, the reason they would not do such things is because
    of another "lie" which is morality. There is no "single" morality to appeal to. Only other self delusions. or .. another lie. Thus guys like superman appeal to a Lie, and perpetuate it. Thus, they are best described as "bad guys".
    I don't follow.



    There is no logical link between 4 & 5.
    If everything he stands for is good (which would make sense because he is a good guy), then evil is good. Because he stands for evil - (see below)
    Also, superman doesn't stand for evil existing.
    He stands for the 'truth' and it is the 'truth' that evil exists.....how are you going to argue against that?

    (Replace 'he' with 'good guy')



    This is not a thread about the existence of "good and evil". this is a thread based on who SHOULD be called a good guy,
    MindTrap;
    'Good' is dependent on morality
    But we (atheists) cannot appeal to an upper, higher, morality
    So there can be no 'good'.
    If you would like to appeal to "good" then you will have to establish that an objective morality exists by which we can judge one to be "good" and one to be "evil".
    No! If you want to appeal to good, then you have already accepted than an objective morality exists. And you already did appeal to good by saying there is a good guy!
    You will note that the standard I have used is not based on Morality, but generally accepted definition of what characteristics a "good guy" represents, and what characteristics a 'bad guy" possesses.
    Well then I would disagree that a good guy stands for the truth, because the truth is, there is a lot of evil in the world! Why would a good guy stand for that?










    *PS.....does this make my butt look fat?
    Last edited by Soren; January 4th, 2011 at 03:53 PM. Reason: clarification

  20. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by Good And Evil

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    You don't see the point?.....really? You don't see the point in pointing out that a fictional character is not a real example? Also,
    Challenge to support a claim. That Superman is the accurate portrait of a good guy
    o.k.. o.k. Let me get this strait.. you don't recognize Superman as the "good guy"? when you watch superman your like "Why are they making a movie about this villain, and why is Lex Luthor being treated so badly by this guy?"

    No, I'm not debating that. If you reject it, your rejection is noted, and we don't have anything to talk about.

    If you think superman IS the good guy for other reasons then those stated, I'll debate that.
    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    Are you being serious right now Mindtrap? A fictional character is not adequate support!
    Adequate support to what?
    We have ideas about what a good guy is, and what a bad guy is. Superman represents that perception, there are other examples. Your objection only makes sense if you really don't recognize superman as a "good guy".

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    Are you being serious right now Mindtrap? A fictional character is not adequate support!
    Consider what it was support for. "An idea". Defining the terms is all.
    your saying you can redefine the terms. That doesn't address the point, it only changes words around and plays semantics with the topic.
    I'm not interested in doing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    1. Appeal to popularity to say that he is the most commonly accepted "good guy"
    do you or do you not recognize super man as the "good guy" of the stories? I'm not saying he IS the good guy because he is accepted, I'm saying we have an idea of what a good guy stands for, and we have generally pegged superman as the embodiment of those ideas (truth being chief). I then went on to show how popular perception is wrong, GIVEN THE STANDARD OF TRUTH. why truth? Because that is the standard by which we identify superman as the "good guy".

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    2. He could have been mistaken when he though he stood for the truth
    so? He either does or does not stand for the truth, his actions are what we judge.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    3. The truth he was standing for, might have been a god. Was Superman a theist? Well if he was, then we are appealing to different 'truths'.
    Only if god exists in reality (truth).
    Your welcome to support that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    Please.
    O geez man, your going to make me read my own thread? .. GRrrrr.
    You will have to give me some time on that.
    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    Question: Does this make my butt look fat? Superman (not wanting to hurt my feelings): No, not at all.........

    That is what a white lie is, and I don't see any reason why Superman wouldn't stand for that.*
    He could as long as he appeals to the greater truth that your feelings are more important than stating his opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    If everything he stands for is good (which would make sense because he is a good guy), then evil is good. Because he stands for evil - (see below)
    no, he must stand for ultimate truth in order to be a good guy. If he doesn't then he isn't. It isn't causal that because he is called "good guy" then he stands for everything good. Because it is possible to mislabel someone, then it doesn't follow that because he is called "good guy" that everything he does is "good".

    That would be like me saying "because I'm calling you a girl, everything you do is feminine". (P.S. I'm not calling you a girl.. unless that was a real picture of your butt, in which case I'm conflicted)

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    He stands for the 'truth' and it is the 'truth' that evil exists.....how are you going to argue against that?

    (Replace 'he' with 'good guy')
    Evil is not shown to exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    No! If you want to appeal to good, then you have already accepted than an objective morality exists. And you already did appeal to good by saying there is a good guy!
    No, I'm appealing to definitions.
    I defined what we consider "good guy". (one who stands for truth).
    That is why your rejection of the definition is a conversation killer.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    Well then I would disagree that a good guy stands for the truth, because the truth is, there is a lot of evil in the world! Why would a good guy stand for that?
    Challenge to support a claim.
    Support that "evil" exists.

    (p.s. I'm coming from the perspective of the joker her)

    Quote Originally Posted by SOREN
    *PS.....does this make my butt look fat?
    YES
    PHAT!
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •