If I was the leader of a nation and I saw a faction, group, rogue state attack a sovereign state, I would sure as hell use violence to defend that country and/or myself. This post is not rellevant in any manner.
It's not our place to intervene. You need to get rid of your hero complex and accept that war between others is not our business and unless it would benefit us in some way our resources should not be wasted on other people's conflicts.
I would like to believe that america as a "Superpower" has some what of a global responsibility to try and stamp out evil. like this little group over in the ME called ISIS.
I'm with garlog. I think the reality is far more complex than simple polar labels like "good" and "evil" can describe. What's normal for the spider is chaos for the fly, and all that.
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
Crimes against humanity = evil. Nothing beyond that is exceptionally good or evil.
I don't really perceive good and evil. I have no notion that anything in reality or the universe is objectively good or bad. Everything is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't generally subscribe to ad populum.
The Middle East specifically is extremely complicated politically. Just because the US has the power to glass anywhere that doesn't adhere to western values doesn't mean they should, or that its a smart move.
Not spoderman, but the quick answer in sentience.
No other known creature has anywhere close to the human capacity for: intelligence, innovation, creativity, individuality, communication, etc.
No other species can build what we've built, do what we've done, or learn what we know. The potential within every human being is great, that is why crimes against humanity are such terrible things. Because they destroy that potential without any real reason.
deleted
· 9 years ago
First of all garlog, if you don't have a personal opinion of right and wrong, it makes it hard to have scruples or indeed, know when the line of acceptability has been crossed. Secondly, it seems that you have a very calculated sense of what is wrong from other comments on this site. So I'm not sure what you are getting at. And to be honest, I agree with Felix.
@felixo77
Yeah, we've done some cool shit, but why does that make us some holy entity entitled to special treatment? On the grand scale of the universe and evolution we're nothing, completely insignificant, our potential indiscernible from the potential of most other forms of life.
@spodermen
The line of acceptability is a social construct, easily discernible simply by interacting with people. You don't need a sense of right and wrong for that.
And my comments are based off of my own personal opinion on subjects, not an over-arcing sense of right and wrong.
If we're using the "insignificant to the universe" argument, we should just nuke the entire planet and get rid of all this mortal filth and let the rest of the universe grow and develop uninhibited by future human activities. After all, we don't matter to the universe so why should it care if we're dead and gone? The Earth'll heal itself in a few million years, perhaps a meteor will come and bring more life-giving organisms and compounds to re-seed the Earth.
3
deleted
· 9 years ago
Acceptable, non-acceptable, good, bad. Same thing. I feel like we're quibbling over words here. Obviously social ideals are based on popular opinion, which is never a good mentality to follow, especially in cases such as that of Nazism. However, sometimes we all hit the nail on the head and almost unanimously decide that ISIS is not a charity. Oh, and when you say "America fighting in the Middle East should not happen", you are stating that it is is bad. Yes, it is your opinion, but it stems from some form of conscience or qualm. Back to the drawing board of right and wrong.
@tylerchu
Why would nuking the earth serve any more of a purpose than what we're doing now? What makes that the appropriate action?
@spodermen
You've contradicted yourself. If ad populum is not a good mentality, then how are acceptable and good (and unacceptable and bad) the same thing?
And your assuming that my opinion stems from some form of right and wrong, when they really only come from my own personal preferences, like and dislikes, which certainly aren't things with any real moral alignment. I like hotdogs, I don't really like hamburgers. It doesn't mean I think hotdogs are right and burgers are wrong.
Jesus Christ it would be easier just to get a list of the things ISIS has done and what they believe in and why and then we can see if you feel the same this conversation has gone off the rails I don't even know what your talking about anymore
2
deleted
· 9 years ago
Garlog, I was talking about the term "acceptable" as good in a moral sense, not what harmonizes with the feelings of our peers. However, some people have a more accurate moral compass than others. Of course, unless you feel absolutely indifferent, which I doubt anyone does, then you can't say that you don't perceive good and bad because your perception of this is reflected in your ability to form opinions. And you may not like me simplifying everything down to good and bad, but at the same time, you are simplifying opinions down to preferences.
@spodermen
Well if you mean acceptable as in synonymous with good, the obviously that will be synonymous with good, that's just redundant.
I already gave a nice example of how preference is different from morality.
@Tylerchu
I can, and I will, because we are. If a quasar were to vaporize Earth it wouldn't even be visible 14 billion kilometers away. We are one type of life form in a green film on a dust mote.
@garlog
"I can and I will"
If you truly believe this then why are you even still alive? After all if humans are just a "green film on a dust mote" than you are even less than that. What is your reason to keep on living if you really believe that none of it matters?
Well this may come as a surprise to you but we do matter. Look at all we have done. We can completely change a landscape from mountain to sea, use complex poisons to wage war on invisible organisms, zip through the sky faster than sound, and can instantly communicate our thoughts, feelings, and deepest desires to the other side of the world with the push of a button. How can you look at all we have done and still say that it is of no consequence? How can you look at all the wonders around you and claim that none of it matters? What kind of sad world do you live in where it is possible to think that your own existence means absolutely nothing?!
Why is it necessarily sad to to think that one day, reality will continue without us, without all the achievements that make you so proud and the follies you find so evil? I don't think that's pessimistic. It just seems natural to me.
@adrianpeterson
Yep, some of my phrasing was borrowed from that
@felixo77
Why am I still alive? Mostly because I wasn't born with this mindset and only gradually grew into it while in a body that likes to keep itself alive. Also, like, anime and video games and stuff.
None of that stuff has any consequence because it almost all in that green film on that dust mote. The universe itself is inconsequential, its just there, there's no purpose to it, and entropy will eventually end it.
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
Garlog, your opinions do not derive from preference, they derive from morality. I can't see that your opinions are any more objective than the rest of us. In your illustration, you likened moral issues like that of the United States in the Middle East to which foods you like to eat. To me, these are very different ideas which don't relate to eachother. Sometimes countries are forced to make decisions which have severe side effects, decisions which aren't only good or only bad, but still must be determined using moral principles. In these cases and many others, likes and dislikes aren't the issue at stake. Yes, your ideas about the US in the Middle East, and your food preferences are both subjective, but I am afraid that is as the comparison goes. And thankyou for agreeing with me about the correlation between acceptability and good.
Well if you are unable to differentiate between morality and preference then I guess that's your loss.
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
Preference is trivial decisions that don't reflect right or wrong and generally don't take a great deal of thought to come up with.
Morality requires deeper thinking, and explores divisive issues and the very core of humanity. Morality is right and wrong. It's something we all have as manifested in our conscience. It's one of the key factors that differentiate us from animals. Did I get it?
@spodermen
Yeah, that's' about right. The "divisive issues" and "core of humanity" thing strikes me as floofy language, but it makes sense.
@metalman
I honestly don't really give a shit either way, but I suppose I'd support it out of apathy.
If you truly believe humans are inconsequential you should go on a suicide-killing spree. Do it. I dare you. Mass murder and then kill yourself at the end before you get caught because you know what? Nobody cares if we live or die. See how many people care. I'm 90% sure that 90% sure of the world will talk so much shit over your grave that your ghost will roam the earth forever.
-
Admittedly this is a straw-man argument but please read past the absurdity of it and consider my point.
@tylerchu
I'm actually not really sure of the point you're trying to make. Why would I kill myself if nobody cares? Isn't that usually a reason not to do something?
@metalman
Yeah, I guess support is a bit of a strong word. What I mean is I'm fine with abortion. If someone wants an abortion I'm not going to stop them, so its sort of that thing where people say that inaction can be supporting something. It's not like I'm going to march around with a pro-choice sign or anything.
@tylerchu
Life itself is insignificant. We may be the most powerful life we know, but what is life compared to even a small sun, or a quasar? Our power is nothing compared to that.
And we may matter to each other, but insignificant things caring about insignificant things doesn't make them significant.
Honestly, this is wayyyy off topic. We aren't debating good or evil. (it's pretty black and white in context) It's just wrong not to help other humans in need if you have the power.
How's the view from that high horse, cia? Everyone has a morality, some people are more inclined to put their ego aside and critically examine its source and its context than others. You're looking pretty absent of sympathy yourself right now.
To the Pluto's sister (SARCASM) It's obviously irrelevant to the point. Also, willfree how is it unsympathetic to tell someone what he is? Symphaty is to show mercy and care. He certainly does not.
In the context it does sure as hell mean that. Your disagreement is irrelevant, I never said that though. I don't care about your agreementbor disagreement, I care about your arguement and your arguement is completely and utterly irrelevant, it has no logical point whatsoever.
No man, that's not what sympathy means. You can't just use the word "context" and make up your own definition. And how does my argument have no logical point? You say "It's just wrong not to help other humans in need if you have the power. " and I say there's no reason to assume that.
Garlog, though I agree that morality is subjective and a construct, you have the wrong stance. These are the morals of most humans, and the laws in most countries. You should still follow them even though you don't agree with the philosophy behind it.
You wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia then not abide by the no women driving laws would you ? No. Because those are the rules there. Though you may think it's stupid, you can't just not follow them. You wouldn't go to an alien planet and break all their laws, because that's how things work there.
Maybe one day the world will change where everyone thinks the same, but right now we aren't there. So if you don't agree on a philosophical view, you still have to decide other peoples business with the views we hold here.
And I'm pretty sure no regard for moral right or wrong can sometimes land you in a mental hospital because they believe with no morality you can be a danger to others with no remorse.
@cia1
Not that I know of.
@fairytalepreferenc
Okay, this has gone on for a while, I don't remember exactly what I specifically said, so can I ask you to tell me what I said that suggests I don't follow laws? And can you also define what you mean by "decide other people business"?
In order to be committed you have to be demonstrably mentally ill, and I don't go around killing people or stealing stuff.
Even if humans don't matter in the galactic scheme, we still matter to each other and that's all we need to matter. As do animals to other animals (wolf packs, elephant herds, all that other whatnot).
In what way do consider that we need that to matter? Like just for survival, or do you mean something else? Also, you bring up other animals, but there are way more animals that don't give a shit about others of their species than ones that do.
Emotionally
Mammals in general but the ones that come first to mind are
Dolphins/whales
Elephants
Canines
Felines
Primates
-
Remember. Some like being alone. Nobody likes being lonely.
Humans might need each other, but humans themselves don't matter, so what matters to humans is just what's important to something that's not important, making that thing unimportant.
Also, my point about animals was just that they're a bad example because there are way more animals that don't help your point than those that do.
Humans don't need to matter to the universe yes?
Humans only need to matter to other humans yes?
If humans don't need to matter to the universe why should we try yes?
Yes, I phrased that wrong.
-
So I understand your argument to be that humans don't matter in the grand scheme of things. I (and others) argue that humans don't need to matter in the big picture because we matter to each other (by human nature). Is this what you understand?
I understand. However, I disagree that (or perhaps don't understand how) those two things are consequential. As I see it, humans don't need to matter in the big picture simply because there's no reason for them to.
Do you mean "correlated"?
-
So we can agree that regardless of mankind's standing in the universe, we are a big part of Earth's biology and our created society.
Well I would argue were not that big a part of the biosphere, but certainly no more or less than anything else alive. And of course were a big part of society, that's kind of our thing.
I didn't say anything about impact. Sure we affect a lot of stuff, but the biosphere is an entropic system. Regardless of our actions, in the end, there will be no net gain.
I'm not sure what your asking me to explain. Is it how we can be a part of things, but still not matter? I apologize for you having to spell these things out for me, this thread seems to be getting a little disjointed in my head.
Explain what do you mean by "entropic system".
-
I agree that we are no more or less than any living thing in terms of how we matter and interact with each other on a symbiotic level.
The entropic principal is just the natural law that all systems tend towards disorder. We generally see nature as an endless repetition of countless cycles moving "forward" as evolution creates an increasingly large number of more and more complex species. However the reality is that all these systems slowly break down over time, there's no evidence of nature "strengthening", but the universe around it will continue to slowly become less energetic.
Why do I need to get my head checked? Why do you call me illiterate when I can clearly read? Why do you keep saying I'm the bad guy when your the one consistently using as hominem?
Your aggression and insistence on playing the man and not the ball undermines your position, cia. You're right about one thing though - you two will probably never agree and it's past time to let this hideous thread die. Let it go.
I'm with willfree.
@cia1
I think you're not understanding what garlog is saying. I'm not even quite sure what YOU'RE saying. Garlog is stating that humans have no galactic consequence, regardless of how influential we are within our little bubble of Earth.
@cia1
"Garlog, reading does not make you smart."
Yes, but that's not what illiterate means.
"The problem is you don't understand, but it does seem that you cannot register what you are in fact reading. "
What don't I understand?
"that guy is a sociopath. "
That argument could likely be made, but only in the most sterile sense, and I'd be labeled a high-functioning non-criminal sociopath at best.
Also for the record, when I typed "as hominem" I meant "ad hominem".
"I do understand what he is saying, but he changed the subject so he could argue from within his comfort zone"
Alright then, bring back to where you want it.
"I lable you as a sociopath soley because you have no care for human life whatsoever."
But that's not what that word means.
It's a medical term, it pretty fucking precise. If you don't mean it literally then you're just using it as pejorative ad hominem, which I imagine is insulting to actual sociopaths, and not "saying it like it is" at all.
"everything would be wrong"
Also what does this mean?
1
deleted
· 9 years ago
I think cia is trying to say that you can't take every word purely at face value. Some words are used to describe broader concepts, which semantics alone cannot define. For example, cia is calling you a sociopath because you "have no care for human life whatsoever". A sociopath is said to hold "extreme antisocial attitudes". You might say, "well that doesn't apply to my attitude", but maybe it does or maybe someone has reason to feel that it does. Correct me if I got this wrong, cia.
That makes sense, but either way my point still stands. If by "sociopath" he didn't mean "sociopath" then he was obviously only using the word as an insult, thus revealing how small of a person he is.
Small of a person? Says the guy who will willingly leave dying people behind. People who are being murdered, people who need your help. You make me sick.
You can't leave people behind if you were never there in the first place. And I'm sorry about your weak constitution. It must be pain in the ass for you digestive system to react so strongly to differing opinions.
It must be great to see people suffer and not doing something about it. I would lable you a coward, but I think your small mind has a hard time grasping the concept.
What? Go off of the definition of violence. The intent to harm or kill someone or something. By that logic every vaccine created is based on violence. Nothing's been solved by violence? Bullshit.
Vaccines are different as they intend to kill viruses that can cause deadly diseases that kill off man kind like the plague almost did.
There's a difference between violence between those with intent to hurt each other and a virus who's main purpose is to end your life.
Killing viruses isn't technically violence. In the definition the something probably means animals.
You wouldn't count cutting your grass as violence, so viruses would be the same.
Nope, the definition says someone or something. Killing viruses is definitely violence, as well as cutting grass.
The picture is stupid anyway. Many wars have been fought to defend worthy ideals. Most of the famous ones, actually.
Viruses aren't alive technically in their "alone" state. When they do become alive there's nothing you can do to stop killing them because that's what your immune system's supposed to do.
They don't need to be alive, they just need to be "something". You do realize that it's possible to be violent to inanimate objects, right? You're immune system is massively violent on it's own scale.
The point is that violence itself is an integral part of being alive, so violence is not, in and of itself, bad, and in addition most western values have been fought for in wars, making the picture completely wrong.
I'm slightly confused as to what your post was trying to argue, beyond perhaps being a simple fun fact.
I was trying to argue against someone saying that killing viruses is violent and unnecessary (or something like that) by saying that killing viruses is natural and there's nothing you can do to stop it aside from killing yourself.
So the idea of security for you and your family isn't a good idea? If a killer comes in our house with a gun and you save your family by shooting or beating him it wasn't a good idea to save the lives of your family?
So fighting against Hitler was worthless? So American freedom was worthless? So killing Osama Bin Laden was worthless? Thanks, ignorant poster. Please, throw some more bullsh*t in front of me.
WWII was a fight against a real, practical threat. Hitler used violence to enforce his ideas, the Allies used violence to cease his ruthless aggression against the world. Everything you mentioned are fights against an idea (or to protect one), not for one.
america use violence to vietnam, even though vietnam didnt have any great weapon like america did. ( vietnam still won though) . america use nuclear bomb at hiroshima and nagasaki ( japanese still feel pretty sad about it you know they keep going on and on about that day, and make monument for it ) and all other countries.
not only vietnam but other countries such as england, dutch, so many more. better read history guys
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
I think there's a point in there somewhere but I'm not quite grasping it.
Are you OK? Even if I didn't have to do actual scientific studies to determine what language you are attempting to communicate in, I would still shoot down your arguement. Why? Because it's retarded.
Way to attack the man and not the argument, guys. Ad hominem much? English probably isn't his/her first language and they're trying to engage. Good job shooting them down, well done.
The only comments I see that in anyway could be considered attacking the person not the argument would be cia's but if it's hard to understand we're definetly going to point it out.
The Middle East specifically is extremely complicated politically. Just because the US has the power to glass anywhere that doesn't adhere to western values doesn't mean they should, or that its a smart move.
What makes humanity so special that crimes against it deserve that special label?
No other known creature has anywhere close to the human capacity for: intelligence, innovation, creativity, individuality, communication, etc.
No other species can build what we've built, do what we've done, or learn what we know. The potential within every human being is great, that is why crimes against humanity are such terrible things. Because they destroy that potential without any real reason.
Yeah, we've done some cool shit, but why does that make us some holy entity entitled to special treatment? On the grand scale of the universe and evolution we're nothing, completely insignificant, our potential indiscernible from the potential of most other forms of life.
@spodermen
The line of acceptability is a social construct, easily discernible simply by interacting with people. You don't need a sense of right and wrong for that.
And my comments are based off of my own personal opinion on subjects, not an over-arcing sense of right and wrong.
Why would nuking the earth serve any more of a purpose than what we're doing now? What makes that the appropriate action?
@spodermen
You've contradicted yourself. If ad populum is not a good mentality, then how are acceptable and good (and unacceptable and bad) the same thing?
And your assuming that my opinion stems from some form of right and wrong, when they really only come from my own personal preferences, like and dislikes, which certainly aren't things with any real moral alignment. I like hotdogs, I don't really like hamburgers. It doesn't mean I think hotdogs are right and burgers are wrong.
But my point is that you can't say that humans are inconsequential.
Well if you mean acceptable as in synonymous with good, the obviously that will be synonymous with good, that's just redundant.
I already gave a nice example of how preference is different from morality.
@Tylerchu
I can, and I will, because we are. If a quasar were to vaporize Earth it wouldn't even be visible 14 billion kilometers away. We are one type of life form in a green film on a dust mote.
Your comment reminded me of dis
"I can and I will"
If you truly believe this then why are you even still alive? After all if humans are just a "green film on a dust mote" than you are even less than that. What is your reason to keep on living if you really believe that none of it matters?
Well this may come as a surprise to you but we do matter. Look at all we have done. We can completely change a landscape from mountain to sea, use complex poisons to wage war on invisible organisms, zip through the sky faster than sound, and can instantly communicate our thoughts, feelings, and deepest desires to the other side of the world with the push of a button. How can you look at all we have done and still say that it is of no consequence? How can you look at all the wonders around you and claim that none of it matters? What kind of sad world do you live in where it is possible to think that your own existence means absolutely nothing?!
Yep, some of my phrasing was borrowed from that
@felixo77
Why am I still alive? Mostly because I wasn't born with this mindset and only gradually grew into it while in a body that likes to keep itself alive. Also, like, anime and video games and stuff.
None of that stuff has any consequence because it almost all in that green film on that dust mote. The universe itself is inconsequential, its just there, there's no purpose to it, and entropy will eventually end it.
Morality requires deeper thinking, and explores divisive issues and the very core of humanity. Morality is right and wrong. It's something we all have as manifested in our conscience. It's one of the key factors that differentiate us from animals. Did I get it?
Yeah, that's' about right. The "divisive issues" and "core of humanity" thing strikes me as floofy language, but it makes sense.
@metalman
I honestly don't really give a shit either way, but I suppose I'd support it out of apathy.
-
Admittedly this is a straw-man argument but please read past the absurdity of it and consider my point.
I'm actually not really sure of the point you're trying to make. Why would I kill myself if nobody cares? Isn't that usually a reason not to do something?
@metalman
Yeah, I guess support is a bit of a strong word. What I mean is I'm fine with abortion. If someone wants an abortion I'm not going to stop them, so its sort of that thing where people say that inaction can be supporting something. It's not like I'm going to march around with a pro-choice sign or anything.
Life itself is insignificant. We may be the most powerful life we know, but what is life compared to even a small sun, or a quasar? Our power is nothing compared to that.
And we may matter to each other, but insignificant things caring about insignificant things doesn't make them significant.
...What's irrelevant, the reasons, or my disagreement itself? And what is it irrelevant to?
Also that's totally not the definition of sympathy.
You wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia then not abide by the no women driving laws would you ? No. Because those are the rules there. Though you may think it's stupid, you can't just not follow them. You wouldn't go to an alien planet and break all their laws, because that's how things work there.
Maybe one day the world will change where everyone thinks the same, but right now we aren't there. So if you don't agree on a philosophical view, you still have to decide other peoples business with the views we hold here.
And I'm pretty sure no regard for moral right or wrong can sometimes land you in a mental hospital because they believe with no morality you can be a danger to others with no remorse.
Not that I know of.
@fairytalepreferenc
Okay, this has gone on for a while, I don't remember exactly what I specifically said, so can I ask you to tell me what I said that suggests I don't follow laws? And can you also define what you mean by "decide other people business"?
In order to be committed you have to be demonstrably mentally ill, and I don't go around killing people or stealing stuff.
Mammals in general but the ones that come first to mind are
Dolphins/whales
Elephants
Canines
Felines
Primates
-
Remember. Some like being alone. Nobody likes being lonely.
Also, my point about animals was just that they're a bad example because there are way more animals that don't help your point than those that do.
Humans only need to matter to other humans yes?
If humans don't need to matter to the universe why should we try yes?
I disagree with this. We don't need to matter to other humans, it's simply a fact that we do.
-
So I understand your argument to be that humans don't matter in the grand scheme of things. I (and others) argue that humans don't need to matter in the big picture because we matter to each other (by human nature). Is this what you understand?
-
So we can agree that regardless of mankind's standing in the universe, we are a big part of Earth's biology and our created society.
-
I agree with your point now but I disagreed with your previous phrasing when you implied that "humans don't matter".
-
I agree that we are no more or less than any living thing in terms of how we matter and interact with each other on a symbiotic level.
@cia1
I think you're not understanding what garlog is saying. I'm not even quite sure what YOU'RE saying. Garlog is stating that humans have no galactic consequence, regardless of how influential we are within our little bubble of Earth.
"Garlog, reading does not make you smart."
Yes, but that's not what illiterate means.
"The problem is you don't understand, but it does seem that you cannot register what you are in fact reading. "
What don't I understand?
"that guy is a sociopath. "
That argument could likely be made, but only in the most sterile sense, and I'd be labeled a high-functioning non-criminal sociopath at best.
Also for the record, when I typed "as hominem" I meant "ad hominem".
Alright then, bring back to where you want it.
"I lable you as a sociopath soley because you have no care for human life whatsoever."
But that's not what that word means.
"everything would be wrong"
Also what does this mean?
There's a difference between violence between those with intent to hurt each other and a virus who's main purpose is to end your life.
You wouldn't count cutting your grass as violence, so viruses would be the same.
The picture is stupid anyway. Many wars have been fought to defend worthy ideals. Most of the famous ones, actually.
I'm slightly confused as to what your post was trying to argue, beyond perhaps being a simple fun fact.
not only vietnam but other countries such as england, dutch, so many more. better read history guys