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 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 485
  1. #321
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    In this case, it is not your opinion that is true/false. It is the case that the attempted fact statement 'the Earth is flat' is a falsehood. To classify opinions this way is to redefine what it means to be an opinion.
    Bull ****. I stated my opinion. I did not say "The earth is flat", which is a statement of fact.
    I said "It is my opinion that the earth is flat", which is the definition of a statement of opinion.

    I have not used the word wrongly. The only question you can bring is what is the intended object of the statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    For example, we may be of the 'opinion' that creamy peanut butter is superior to chunky peanut butter, but it is not the case that such an opinion has to be intrinsically true or false.
    Is it true that it is your opinion? If you were to make such a statement, then claim that it isn't true, then you don't sound very sure that it is in-fact your opinion and you shouldn't claim that it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    We can have opinions about facts which have yet to or cannot be verified, but the moment we are able to establish whether a statement is true/false we move from classifying the statements as an 'opinion' and move on to classifying it as a 'fact' or 'falsehood'. I am not of the 'opinion' that the Earth is round, it is simply a 'fact' that the Earth is round.
    Equivocation.
    You are confusing the objects of the opinion.
    If the intended object is the condition of the earth, then it is true or false.
    If the intended object is the condition of my thoughts, then it is true or false. (as Rod pointed out).
    In my case, it is false in both senses.

    That is the exhaustive sense in which the opinion can be intended.
    If there is a third sense, then please enumerate it.


    ----------------------------




    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I made it clear that I'm not interested in semantic debate and your last post is little more than A LOT of semantic arguing. I have no desire to engage in a bunch of semantic debating.
    Question to opponent.Does that mean I should allow you to use words in ways that are not connected at all with their meanings, to invent a language that I have to learn in order to understand your position?
    That seems to be an unreasonable requirement IMO. What if for every word you made up.. I made up one as well, where would we be? How long before all I can possibly offer is statements you will call straw-men?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You originally asked me to better define certain words. I have no obligation to actually do that (since I have no argument forwarded that requires me to do that for support) but if it would help clear up some confusion, it's good debate etiquette to do that.
    Part of the problem with this debate is communication. Agree? You say Tomato, and I think orange, because you decided to spell tomato "O.R.A.N.G.E." I'm trying to cut through all that and get to the meaning. That is why you see me re-stating your claim at the end.

    I have tried to be careful to ask specifically what you mean when a word can be taken several ways. (Duty for example).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But when you start arguing over the definitions I forward then it's no longer an issue of me clarifying anything (since you apparently feel that you know the definition of the word if you are challenging the definition I forward and therefore need no clarification from me) and therefore I feel no obligation to continue talking about what certain words mean. IF it becomes pertinent to my argument to nail down a certain word, I will bring it up. If I feel that you really don't understand something very pertinent and it's important that I clear it up so you can generate a relevant response to what I'm saying.
    The problem is, words have meanings.
    Once you start changing the meanings, it is impossible for me personally to keep up with that change. I'm sorry I'm limited like that. I already use English like a 3rd language. So if you take a word with an already established meaning, and change it to mean something that is not conveyed by the word itself (effectively inventing language) I can't respond to it over several posts. It confuses me HONESTLY. So when you describe a rock as a winged insect with antenna that drinks the sap of flowers. You are going to lose me when butterflies are finally mentioned, and I have no idea if you are talking about geology or biology anymore.

    So far EVERY SINGLE WORD I have brought up is significant to the discussion. If "Duty" has 12 different meanings, and I can't find your definition in it or reflected by it. Why in the world would you continue to use it? 'Why use it in the first place it can only breed miscommunication and equivocation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I feel no more obligation to engage in a semantics debate than my desire to engage in a semantic debate. And as I said in my last post, I have no desire to engage in a semantic debate. So I'm not responding to your semantic arguments or requests for clarification for I don't think you are particularly confused about my position.
    You goal here is to communicate your position to me. I am trying to understand what you are saying. I have not yet insisted that you use one defined sense of a word over another. I'm not doing that, and I am accepting every single official sense of the word you point out. If you say it is #2, then I accept it and try to make my posts reflect that. I believe that is evident in my ACCURATE summary of your statement. I certainly haven't offered a straw-man of your statement and attacked that have I? (not that you are accusing). That should be evidence enough that I am trying to accurately and precisely understand and communicate YOUR position back to you.

    That said, that is not a license for you to re-define every word you use. My objections are to you taking concepts that inherently convey truth values, and using them in a way that doesn't or trying to divorce the idea by fiat. I assert that such a thing is special pleading. You are crying semantics, but it smells of incoherence.

    Were I to say A square circle exists, you would cry foul saying they were contradictory. If I re-defined it to mean other than what it does, that the circle I am talking about CAN have 4 sides and is thus not a contradiction. Isn't that just special pleading to avoid the obviously incoherent statement? Or does your objection to my definition of a circle amount to a "semantic argument"?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But I'll respond to your last bit, which I think it the crux of your response anyway and is simple enough (and likewise shows you have a pretty good grasp on my position and don't really need much clarification).
    No.. I do not understand how you are using "duty". I have asked a direct question regarding it's meaning, and you have not answered it.
    I appreciate that you don't want to get into a semantic debate, and I'm not here to choose from the ways a word can be used. I only insist that you use the words properly and not re-define them. Considering the central nature of "duty" and "obligation" to the debate, I think a strait answer is necessary if you are to presume to be trying to communicate to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I should put it in my own words.

    "I subjectively forward that people have a duty to me to not murder. Since what I forward is subjective, it cannot be considered factually true that people have a duty to me. Since what I forward is a mental concept, it does not physically exist and therefore can be considered illusory."
    So what you said is basically right. I just switched "insist" with "subjectively forward" for "SF" is what I originally meant when I apparently misused the word "assert" to describe forwarding the duty.

    .... Dude.. I have no idea what "subjectively forward" means.
    you may as well say you "I pineapple climb that people have a duty..... ".

    I mean, I understood "assert", but I understand how one can "subjectively forward" something as well as I understand how you could "pineapple climb" something.

    Because of that I am forced to look up the words you used.

    Subjectively forward (SF) = .... ?? (My guesses)
    1. You have an imagination you want to move in a forward direction?
    2. Something in your brain has the effect of ...?
    3. The thought that belongs to you, is being promoted ...?
    To serve man.

  2. #322
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by Zealous Demon
    Statements "Chocolate is the very best flavor of ice cream" and "I like chocolate ice cream better than any other flavor of ice cream" can be statements with completely different intents. You cannot necessarily equivocate the two in all cases. To do so denies the fact that people have arguments and debates about subjective topics all the time.
    [In your sentence that reads "You cannot necessarily equivocate the two in all cases," I assume you mean something like "You cannot consider those two statements to have equivalent meanings in all cases." Is this OK or do you mean something else that I'm missing?]

    It's very difficult if not wholly impossible to argue against someone's entirely subjective opinion. If I say "I like X because I like X" then what is there to argue against? How can you argue that I don't actually "like" what it is that I say I "like"? It's rather difficult to argue against tautological truth, isn't it?

    No one said that the two statements in the quoted passage above have equivalent meanings in all cases. However, if by "Chocolate is the very best flavor of ice cream" one doesn't mean something like "I like chocolate ice cream better than any other flavor of ice cream" then it is incumbent on one to list the objective standards by which one came to make the former assessment if questioned about that assessment.

    One can say "Murder is wrong" and mean no more by it than "I don't like murder" or one can mean something else, like for example "Murder is always wrong everywhere and everytime it occurs." But if one does intend to convey the latter thought then one, in honest debate, is obligated to divulge the reasons that one came to that conclusion if challenged about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zealous Demon
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Support that opinions are neither true nor false.

    It is my opinion that the earth is flat. My opinion is false because the earth is NOT flat.
    If there were no earth, my opinion would still be false. Clearly opinions can be true and false.In this case, it is not your opinion that is true/false.
    It is the case that the attempted fact statement 'the Earth is flat' is a falsehood. To classify opinions this way is to redefine what it means to be an opinion.
    No, MT is correct. An opinion is a proposition that one believes to be true; even though, in the sense that we're using the term here, one does so without having sufficient evidence to prove that the proposition is true.

    Any opinion is either true or false. Even though the opinion holder does not know with certainty whether the opinion is true or false, the opinion holder believes his opinion to be true, nevertheless. It makes no sense to say "IMO, the earth is flat even though I know it's not."
    Last edited by Rodriguez; January 25th, 2013 at 06:56 AM.

  3. Thanks BasicInstinct, MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  4. #323
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Actually, "assert" works fine as a word so I'll go back to that. So here is my statement again:

    "I subjectively assert that people have a duty to me to not murder. Since what I assert is subjective , it cannot be considered factually true that people have a duty to me. Since "duty" is a mental concept, it does not physically exist and therefore can be considered illusory so what I assert (duty) can be considered illusory."

    And here are the definition of the words that seem problematic or unclear (definitions taken from a dictionary)

    Subjective:
    1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective ).

    Assert:
    1. to insist upon (rights, claims, etc.)
    (and in case there's confusion on this, when a dictionary provides multiple definitions of a word, all of the definitions are individually acceptable so I have no obligation to use any of the other definitions offered to correctly use the word "assert". "To insist upon" is what I mean when I say "assert".


    So hopefully by providing dictionary definitions of the words that you were unclear about, my statement is understood well enough so we can proceed.
    Last edited by mican333; January 25th, 2013 at 02:49 PM.

  5. #324
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    I hate to butt in but this is an interesting argument and I have to confess that I'm a bit unclear on what it is that you're trying to say, too, mic.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    I subjectively assert that people have a duty to me to not murder. Since what I assert is subjective , it cannot be considered factually true that people have a duty to me. Since what I assert is a mental concept, it does not physically exist and therefore can be considered illusory.
    Can this be translated as

    "I feel as if people have a duty to me to not murder, although I have no support or evidence for this stance beyond my subjective feelings and fully realize that my claim may be mistaken. Indeed, it may very well turn out to be the case that people have NO duty to me not to murder. So if someone feels, for subjective reasons, that they have no duty to me not to murder then they are just as likely to be correct as I am."

    If this is not a fair translation, what about it would you change?

  6. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  7. #325
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Can this be translated as

    "I feel as if people have a duty to me to not murder, although I have no support or evidence for this stance beyond my subjective feelings and fully realize that my claim may be mistaken. Indeed, it may very well turn out to be the case that people have NO duty to me not to murder. So if someone feels, for subjective reasons, that they have no duty to me not to murder then they are just as likely to be correct as I am."

    If this is not a fair translation, what about it would you change?
    I would say it can be summed up this way:

    "I assert that people have a duty to me to not murder. Duty, though, is a subjective concept and doesn't exist outside of the mind so it cannot be considered factually true that anyone has a duty to me."

  8. #326
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I would say it can be summed up this way:

    "I assert that people have a duty to me to not murder. Duty, though, is a subjective concept and doesn't exist outside of the mind so it cannot be considered factually true that anyone has a duty to me."
    Whether or not it is factually true that other people have a duty to you not to murder, you have asserted that they do. Thus it is incumbent upon you to give the reasons that support your assertion or to admit that you have no reasons for making it.

    Any and all propositions are either true or false even though we may not know which a particular proposition is. All we can do is to evaluate the reasons that are given for someone's assertion that a particular proposition is true and then come to a probable and tentative conclusion regarding that proposition's truth.

  9. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  10. #327
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    (and in case there's confusion on this, when a dictionary provides multiple definitions of a word, all of the definitions are individually acceptable so I have no obligation to use any of the other definitions offered to correctly use the word "assert". "To insist upon" is what I mean when I say "assert".
    To be clear.. I have never said otherwise, in-fact that is exactly what I was demanding you do. (IE point to an official definition).
    Wouldn't you agree that I have accepted every instance where you have done so? This should be a non issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, "assert" works fine as a word so I'll go back to that. So here is my statement again:

    "I subjectively assert that people have a duty to me to not murder. Since what I assert is subjective, it cannot be considered factually true that people have a duty to me. Since "duty" is a mental concept, it does not physically exist and therefore can be considered illusory so what I assert (duty) can be considered illusory."

    And here are the definition of the words that seem problematic or unclear (definitions taken from a dictionary)
    Thanks, I appreciate you using a word that I have a better grasp of over one that I confess to not understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So hopefully by providing dictionary definitions of the words that you were unclear about, my statement is understood well enough so we can proceed.
    Thank you, I am clear on the sense in which you are using each word.

    First, let me say I may have been a bit unclear. When I said I understand assert, but I don't understand "subjectively forward".
    I was not trying to say that I understand "subjectively assert". I understand the words and the sense that you are intending them individually. I don't understand how
    they can work together or maybe how it is supposed to relate to the other elements in the statement. Below I am not trying to make a point, only trying to understand what you mean. Please donít respond to the ones that arenít related or close to what you mean.


    Right... So "subjective" is something in the mind or belongs to the thinker (and not the object of thought). By asserting you are insisting on it. I got that (paraphrased of course).

    1) So to subjectively assert is to say that the asserting is being done "in the mind"(existing in the mind)?
    Like telepathy, like you are using your mind to communicate. I don't think that is what you mean.. is it?

    You are only asserting in your mind?
    objection - That would be false as soon as you type it or speak it to someone.



      • Is it that your mind is the subject of the entire sentence, so you are describing a state of your mind?



    2) Are you saying you are imagining (existing in the mind) that you are asserting? Like saying "I can picture myself on a beach. The waves rhythmically crashing on the shore".


      • -Objection- That would make whatever follows the assertion of a self proclaimed delusional person.




    3) Is it to say that the assertion you are making belongs to you the thinking subject?


      • Q- If that is the case, how is it relevant information? Aren't all assertions by people making them? I don't think such a meaning would effect the statement, and should be omitted.




    4) Other???
    To serve man.

  11. #328
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) So to subjectively assert is to say that the asserting is being done "in the mind"(existing in the mind)?
    No, it's saying that what I'm asserting was created in my mind. The duty was created by my mind so the duty is subjective.

    I think I may not have worded my previous statement as well I could have have. Let me try again.

    I create a duty in my mind and then I assert that duty so I am asserting something that is subjective when I say "Murder is immoral".

  12. #329
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, it's saying that what I'm asserting was created in my mind. The duty was created by my mind so the duty is subjective.

    I think I may not have worded my previous statement as well I could have have. Let me try again.

    I create a duty in my mind and then I assert that duty so I am asserting something that is subjective when I say "Murder is immoral".
    Not a problem, thanks.
    I'm sorry, I need to make one more distinction. You may consider this as two distinct suggestions of more clear wording, differing in specific aspects.

    1) Would it be fair to say that you are imagining people have a duty to you to not murder, and that you assert that imagination on others?

    Or are you saying.

    2) Your mind creates a duty for others to not murder, and you assert that duty through your actions(which is a form of forcefully insisting).

    Explanations..
    I see #1 as being confined to the mind in the first part, and the second part being a description of your resulting actions.
    I see #2 as being an external effect created by your mind, and the second part being the enforcement of that effect.
    To serve man.

  13. #330
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not a problem, thanks.
    I'm sorry, I need to make one more distinction. You may consider this as two distinct suggestions of more clear wording, differing in specific aspects.

    1) Would it be fair to say that you are imagining people have a duty to you to not murder, and that you assert that imagination on others?

    Or are you saying.

    2) Your mind creates a duty for others to not murder, and you assert that duty through your actions(which is a form of forcefully insisting).
    I don't think either have it quite right but 2 is closer.

    My mind creates a duty for people, myself as well as others, to not murder and I assert that that duty exists.

    I am under no obligation to attempt to force or even influence others not to murder in order to hold that moral position. Sorry if that confuses things a bit but let me put it this way - the person my moral position effects the most is me. So if I assert a duty to myself to not murder I am more inclined to never murder anyone than if I did not assert such a duty to myself. So even if I never attempted to influence another person to not murder, I have still created a duty that has an effect on the world as my actions (or lack of action when it comes to murder) has an effect on the world.

  14. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  15. #331
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't think either have it quite right but 2 is closer.

    My mind creates a duty for people, myself as well as others, to not murder and I assert that that duty exists.
    I didnít intend to focus on ďothersĒ and exclude yourself. Thanks for clarifying that.
    *reason for the oversight*. This is irrelevant to what follows, and it is better to include yourself in the statement for clarities sake(that woman is always confused). Anyway.. I (Bob) managed to skim through the thread and noticed MT object to the idea of you creating duties for yourself. I did not include yourself because I donít intend to challenge that line as MT did (silly man)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So if I assert a duty to myself to not murder I am more inclined to never murder anyone than if I did not assert such a duty to myself. So even if I never attempted to influence another person to not murder, I have still created a duty that has an effect on the world as my actions (or lack of action when it comes to murder) has an effect on the world.
    As a reflection of the first motivation (above) I am not really interested in discussing your personal reasons for what YOU do regarding yourself. If you refrain from an action, I donít care if the motivation for it is that you think it is yucky, or immoral.

    What I am interested in most is the interaction of the first part of your statement (about yourself) that affects the second part of the statement (which effects others/myself/everyone else)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My mind creates a duty for people, myself as well as others, to not murder and I assert that that duty exists.
    Iím repeating this quote from you because there are actually two ďissuesĒ that were effected. The first is above regarding including yourself (which I agree with). The second is that I donít feel that you have clarified the motivation for my creation of the two options. Though I admit that they are potentially both flawed, and Iíll try to offer two(slightly) different versions below.

    I donít know in what sense you mean the duty to exist.

    1) It sounds like you are insisting that the duty exists in your mind. To which I would agree, or at least accept your word on it. ÖIs that what you mean?
    Potential objection (To which I would sayÖ so what? I can equally insist that a square circle exists in my mind)

    2) The alternative is that your mind creates a duty (which exists in the mind) that you insist ,to others, exists outside of the mind as a consequence of it existing in your mind.





    To serve man.

  16. #332
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) It sounds like you are insisting that the duty exists in your mind. To which I would agree, or at least accept your word on it. …Is that what you mean?
    Potential objection (To which I would say… so what? I can equally insist that a square circle exists in my mind)
    That is what I mean. And I don't see the point of your objection.

  17. #333
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    That is what I mean. And I don't see the point of your objection.
    So #1 IS what you are trying to say?

    -potential objection a
    The objection is so what? I can equally insist that a square circle exists in my mind
    I will try to help you understand the point of it here. Now you will agree with me that a "square circle" can only exist in the mind as an illogical concept. I used a square circle not to equate your statement with an illogical statement,or an illogical concept that was logically impossible to exist outside of the mind. I use it because it is limited to the mind and thus makes the example clearer(or should). So when I insist that a square circle exists ,in my mind, to all around me. The objection of "so what" could validly come up.

    The point is, it is an irrelevant truth in regards to my existence. There is no reason or motivation for me to be concerned with the imaginations of others. It is uninteresting.

    Your statement (if it is #1) is only describing a state of your mind, and a fact regarding your imagination. So I ask, why should I be concerned with that state, and the happenings in your imagination?
    To serve man.

  18. #334
    senator
    Guest

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    morals are based on well bieng of oneself without causing harm to society as we are developed living creatures who lives in "harmony". Such a crime of mass murdering is immoral, completly immoral and is also an act of cowardice. Morality is your actions towards others which u expect to get from others. On the moral ground he did commit suicide as he expects nothing but death for deaths. As mentioned, it is also act of cowardice as one would expect least interventions while carrying out such henious crime thus allowing to create as much menace as possible.

    commiting a murder and speaking a lie are both immoral, but based on thier repercussions we judge how much have we affected from it

  19. #335
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The objection is so what? I can equally insist that a square circle exists in my mind
    I will try to help you understand the point of it here. Now you will agree with me that a "square circle" can only exist in the mind as an illogical concept. I used a square circle not to equate your statement with an illogical statement,or an illogical concept that was logically impossible to exist outside of the mind. I use it because it is limited to the mind and thus makes the example clearer(or should). So when I insist that a square circle exists ,in my mind, to all around me. The objection of "so what" could validly come up.
    I agree that a person can say "So what" to my moral assertion. Of course a person can say "So what" to anyone's moral assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point is, it is an irrelevant truth in regards to my existence. There is no reason or motivation for me to be concerned with the imaginations of others. It is uninteresting.

    Your statement (if it is #1) is only describing a state of your mind, and a fact regarding your imagination. So I ask, why should I be concerned with that state, and the happenings in your imagination?
    Because I want you to be concerned (as in I want you to obey my assertion that you should not murder). And if you care about my opinion on murder because you happen to care what I, Joe, thinks (and some people do care, like my friends and family) then you are less likely to murder anyone because of that.

    If you don't care what I think (because you don't know me or don't care about my moral assertions), then I guess my moral position won't effect you.

    But I don't see how any of this reveals a flaw in my morality.
    Last edited by mican333; January 27th, 2013 at 03:30 PM.

  20. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  21. #336
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    @ Mican, I assume that we have reached a general understanding on "what" you are saying. IE #1 of post 331, as that is the line you have followed.

    From now on, we are discussing the "effects & consequences" of what you are saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I agree that a person can say "So what" to my moral assertion. Of course a person can say "So what" to anyone's moral assertion.
    I do mean it as a real question and not as a dismissal. The second part of your statement is irrelevant and not something I agree with (please don't debate it at this point).

    I am asking you for the relevance to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Because I want you to be concerned (as in I want you to obey my assertion that you should not murder).
    Right.. you want to control me, and you are basing on your imagination.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And if you care about my opinion on murder because you happen to care what I, Joe, thinks (and some people do care, like my friends and family) then you are less likely to murder anyone because of that.
    Should I follow someone who lives an admitted fantasy, and wants to make others take part in it? Is that what you find convincing, reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you don't care what I think (because you don't know me or don't care about my moral assertions), then I guess my moral position won't effect you.

    But I don't see how any of this reveals a flaw in my morality.
    I think the flaw is that you are living in a fantasy world and you are actually basing actions on that fantasy.

    I find such a position very unconvincing and on some levels scary.
    To serve man.

  22. #337
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ Mican, I assume that we have reached a general understanding on "what" you are saying. IE #1 of post 331, as that is the line you have followed.

    From now on, we are discussing the "effects & consequences" of what you are saying.
    Then it's a probably a good idea to try to stick with the terms we agreed upon and not introduce any new terms unless it's absolutely necessary (or else we'll have to pause the debate again to nail them down).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I do mean it as a real question and not as a dismissal. The second part of your statement is irrelevant and not something I agree with (please don't debate it at this point).

    I am asking you for the relevance to me.
    I never argued that there was relevance to you. I guess it depends on how much my opinion means to you. If my opinion means nothing to you, then there is no relevance to you (as far as influencing your chosen actions go).

    The relevance to your life beyond the prospect of influencing your chosen actions is:
    1. Since I feel I have a duty to not murder, it's less likely that I will commit murder that might effect your life (not likely, but if I were a killer then it's possible that I could kill someone you know)
    2. While I assume that my duty will not influence you, it does influence other people (those who do heed my opinion) and it's possible that that might make a difference whether someone I know murders anyone (which again, could effect your life). That kind of influence is miniscule but it's not nonexistent.
    3. I also, in a miniscule way, have a political effect and my moral positions lead me to vote in certain ways which also has an influence, however small.

    So I can't say I have a significant effect on your life, but the potentiality is there so my morals are not entirely irrelevant to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think the flaw is that you are living in a fantasy world and you are actually basing actions on that fantasy.
    "Living in a fantasy world", as I understand it, refers to a person who's entire reality is a fantasy, like if I believed that I lived in The land of OZ instead of on Planet Earth.

    Generating a duty in one's mind is hardly the same thing. While "imagination" and "fantasy" have common ground, they are not synonyms and using them interchangeably is unwarranted.

    Let's, as much as possible, stick to the terminology that we nailed down already.
    Last edited by mican333; January 27th, 2013 at 09:38 PM.

  23. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  24. #338
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Then it's a probably a good idea to try to stick with the terms we agreed upon and not introduce any new terms unless it's absolutely necessary (or else we'll have to pause the debate again to nail them down).
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    "Living in a fantasy world", as I understand it, refers to a person who's entire reality is a fantasy, like if I believed that I lived in The land of OZ instead of on Planet Earth.

    Generating a duty in one's mind is hardly the same thing.

    Let's, as much as possible, stick to the terminology that we nailed down already.
    This is where the attempt to understand the other persons position needs to go in both directions. I have spent the last several posts trying to understand your position, and have tried to use the terminology you choose (as long as it wasn't a re-definition of terms) in order to understand it. The debate is now shifting from me trying to understand what you are saying, to now I am engaging your stated position. Now it is your turn to offer ME(bob) the same courtesy that I afforded you. If there is a problem with understanding a term I use, or you feel that my term(as I am using it) is not correct or does not accurately encapsulate an aspect of your position then I welcome your challenge (I certainly challenged some of your usages).

    Quote Originally Posted by DEFINE
    fantasy world - something existing solely in the imagination (but often mistaken for reality) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fantasy+world
    I use this term because I believe that it accurately reflects what you have expressed. That other people have a duty to you to not murder exists in your mind. Because you have said it does not exist in reality, means that it is a "fantasy world".

    When I say that you are "living in a fantasy world" I mean that you are choosing to live out the fantasy world that you have created. in your mind (or that exists in your mind).
    This is akin to dressing up like the Tin Man and prancing around singing about the Yellow brick road, and "insisting"(As you use it) that everyone else *Singing* follow, follow, follow follow the yellow brick road. */singing*

    There is no difference in structure and it is a comparable fantasy world. (in that they both exists in the mind and in the world in equal measure).


    The oddest thing of all is that you do this the whole while being aware that it is in fact a fantasy world.




    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I never argued that there was relevance to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I can't say I much anything resembling a significant amount of effect on your life, but the potentiality is there so my morals are not entirely irrelevant to you.
    Right.. Well I wasn't saying you were arguing that it was relevant to me, I just don't know why you would think that people would find irrelevant things worth listening to. But now you are going to argue that it has some relevance to me, and this is supposed to be "convincing" me that I should play along in your "fantasy world"(see above)?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If my opinion means nothing to you, then there is no relevance to you (as far as influencing your chosen actions go).
    See, here your "opinion" is that I should adhere to your fantasy world. That is what you are effectively insisting on.
    You may be under the impression that "people have a duty to you to not murder" is your opinion, but that is not your opinion, that is a fantasy that exists in your mind only. Your official opinion on others having an external moral duty at all is that they do not exist. So it would be improper to call the first part your opinion.

    So, in general your fantasies mean nothing to me. Your opinion that I should adhere to that fantasy does mean something to me (more below)


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN

    The relevance to your life beyond the prospect of influencing your chosen actions is:

    1. Since I feel I have a duty to not murder, it's less likely that I will commit murder that might effect your life (not likely, but if I were a killer then it's possible that I could kill someone you know)
    2. While I assume that my duty will not influence you, it does influence other people (those who do heed my opinion) and it's possible that that might make a difference whether someone I know murders anyone (which again, could effect your life). That kind of influence is miniscule but it's not nonexistent.
    3. I also, in a miniscule way, have a political effect and my moral positions lead me to vote in certain ways which also has an influence, however small.

    So I can't say I much anything resembling a significant amount of effect on your life, but the potentiality is there so my morals are not entirely irrelevant to you.
    Well it certainly is helpful to know if your fantasy world is going to be a danger to me or not, so I am thankful for that. You have me convinced that it is relevant to me in that sense. I would hate to be around a lot of people who were insisting that their fantasy world of rape and murder ought to be obeyed. That would not be very wise.



    Official objection to your insisting


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN POST 335
    But I don't see how any of this reveals a flaw in my morality.
    Given what the objection I am about to raise, I can honestly say I don't expect you to see it (sorry if that is offensive).

    My objection is two fold regarding your INSISTING, not your fantasy.

    You are insisting that people obey YOUR fantasy world (see above for definition and explanation).
    I object to this because it is unreasonable to insist(as you use it) that anyone obey another persons fantasy

    That you know your fantasy world is not true, means that you are "self deluded".
    Now that is a tricky one. Here I mean that the Delusion is caused by yourself. Delusion here is used to mean. "1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:" Emphasis here being the "unrealistic" portion. Finally "Unrealistic" is used "1. interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real" Admittedly there is more to "unrealistic", but that is the sense in which I intend the word delusional".

    I could just say that you are "delusional" instead of "self deluded".

    I object because self delusion is something one should avoid. Delusional people should not be obeyed specifically and especially in relation to their delusion. This because TRUTH is what should be sought.

    Regarding a "flaw".
    Question to opponent. My question to you is. Do you see a flaw in delusions? Do you find actions based on fantasy worlds flawed? Do you find those thing "reasonable" motivations or is your case a "special" one that exempts it from being otherwise unreasonable?

    Conclusion
    When someone does not obey you, they are doing nothing more significant than (something akin to)refusing to play D&D with you. I appreciate your openness , and I'm very glad that you do not appear to be an immediate threat to me right now.
    To serve man.

  25. #339
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I use this term because I believe that it accurately reflects what you have expressed.
    Where do you believe that Joe has mistaken his subjective preference as a reflection of reality? Isn't Joe's position that no such reality exists?

    The oddest thing of all is that you do this the whole while being aware that it is in fact a fantasy world.


    Ah, so if Joe is aware of the fantasy, then he's not mistaking it for reality, right?

    If Joe isn't mistaking his position as reflective of a reality, isn't "subjective" a much more accurate term?
    ~Zealous

  26. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  27. #340
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Was it truly immoral to commit mass murder at a school? Moral relativists challen

    Quote Originally Posted by ZD
    Where do you believe that Joe has mistaken his subjective preference as a reflection of reality? Isn't Joe's position that no such reality exists?


    Ah, so if Joe is aware of the fantasy, then he's not mistaking it for reality, right?

    If Joe isn't mistaking his position as reflective of a reality, isn't "subjective" a much more accurate term?
    I did not say he mistakes it for reality, that is not a necessary component to "fantasy world".

    I will ask that you as Well ZD try to offer me the same consideration I offered Joe. I allowed him to define the terms he used
    to communicate his position to me. I hope that you will allow me to use terms that I choose in my objection.

    So again, "fantasy world" is used for it's primary meaning
    something existing solely in the imagination


    Does that not accurately reflect Joes expression that "people have a duty to him to not murder exists in his mind" and "no such objective truth exists"(paraphrased).

    If it does, then your objection boils down to you not liking that the word is accurate.. Why is that?
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. God: Did God Commit Murder?
    By Tarja in forum Religion
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: November 6th, 2008, 04:09 PM
  2. Home school VS Public school
    By MindTrap028 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 13th, 2006, 05:58 AM
  3. New Orleans cops commit suicide...
    By Slipnish in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 7th, 2005, 05:40 AM
  4. Moral Murder?
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: March 14th, 2005, 03:45 PM
  5. Nick Berg video shown to school children...IN school
    By Apokalupsis in forum Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: June 9th, 2004, 10:27 PM

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
  •