Author Topic: This Is Very Important To Me  (Read 41509 times)

Logikal X

  • Fine as dandelions
  • *****
  • Posts: 1900
    • MSN Messenger - tqhx@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - tqhx
    • View Profile
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #255 on: March 03, 2004, 07:55:11 am »
Quote from: "Katia's Lover"
Quote from: "Grakthis"
Quote from: "Katia's Lover"
You people are way too stupid.


hey guyz, whts goin on in this thread thats way abve my intellect lvl?!? OMGBBQWTFLOLZ!!!111!!


Not really.  I've actually enjoyed your way-below-my-level conversation.   8O



your comments are way pointless
Quote from: "ReSpektDaFrenziedEVanesSa"
But I have to say I love the feeling of anything going up my butt, it just drives me wild.

Grakthis

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3983
  • Lord Andrew
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Grakthis
    • View Profile
    • http://www.grakthis.com
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #256 on: March 03, 2004, 07:55:39 am »
Quote from: "Katia's Lover"
Quote from: "Grakthis"
Quote from: "Katia's Lover"
You people are way too stupid.


hey guyz, whts goin on in this thread thats way abve my intellect lvl?!? OMGBBQWTFLOLZ!!!111!!


Not really.  I've actually enjoyed your way-below-my-level conversation.   8O


Your mother is involved in a way-below-my-navel conversation.

Todds Mom ->  :o

Me -> \m_  :twisted: _m/
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

Logikal X

  • Fine as dandelions
  • *****
  • Posts: 1900
    • MSN Messenger - tqhx@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - tqhx
    • View Profile
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #257 on: March 03, 2004, 07:57:21 am »
way cool dude!
Quote from: "ReSpektDaFrenziedEVanesSa"
But I have to say I love the feeling of anything going up my butt, it just drives me wild.

kev222

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3194
  • zero vector
    • AOL Instant Messenger - k3v222
    • View Profile
    • http://www.kev.nu/vc
    • Email
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #258 on: March 03, 2004, 08:47:39 am »
Quote from: "Grakthis"
You believed Machiavelli?!?  Punk'd! lol.

Perhaps I still do. How could anybody with such impeccable fashion sense be wrong?



I only concede that, under a utility theory based system of law, you are right. I still think that this system of law sux0rz (although it could be much worse, the results are largely compatible with what I believe). I just don't know enough about the philiosophy behind it to put forward a decent case (if one could be made).

Quote from: "Grakthis"
Thomas Hobbes pwns j000000!!!!

But I could totally Pwnz0r his 17th century azz at nintendo.

-Kev

Grakthis

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3983
  • Lord Andrew
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Grakthis
    • View Profile
    • http://www.grakthis.com
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #259 on: March 03, 2004, 08:55:39 am »
Quote from: "kev222"
Quote from: "Grakthis"
You believed Machiavelli?!?  Punk'd! lol.

Perhaps I still do. How could anybody with such impeccable fashion sense be wrong?



I only concede that, under a utility theory based system of law, you are right. I still think that this system of law sux0rz (although it could be much worse, the results are largely compatible with what I believe). I just don't know enough about the philiosophy behind it to put forward a decent case (if one could be made).

Quote from: "Grakthis"
Thomas Hobbes pwns j000000!!!!

But I could totally Pwnz0r his 17th century azz at nintendo.

-Kev


Lolin down rodeo with a shotgun!  Hobbes couldn't play Double Dribble to save his ass.

As a system of law, "Natural Law" or "Utility Theory" or any of the 1 million names people have used for "Rational Morality", provides the most flexibility to the masses to maintain their own personal beliefs without being opressed.  And unless you can convince an entire nation to support a single morality then any other basis for law becomes a Theocracy.  

While you may support a Theorcracy, I do not.  I like my oligarchy, thank you very much.  :electoralcollegejam:
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

rosieposy87

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3394
  • Prat Twin #2
    • MSN Messenger - rosie_posy87@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - rosieposy87
    • View Profile
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #260 on: March 03, 2004, 09:21:01 am »
Yeah, we did Utilitarianism (which i think is that actual name, so kev- that doesn't suck as much, you just can't spell it thats all  :wink: ) in ethics- like most of those theories "Good idea, CRAP in practice". Would say more but i am too tiiiiired after dancing like a fish for 2 hours.
"I'm all about the wordplay."

Grakthis

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3983
  • Lord Andrew
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Grakthis
    • View Profile
    • http://www.grakthis.com
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #261 on: March 03, 2004, 10:40:42 am »
Quote from: "rosieposy87"
Yeah, we did Utilitarianism (which i think is that actual name, so kev- that doesn't suck as much, you just can't spell it thats all  :wink: ) in ethics- like most of those theories "Good idea, CRAP in practice". Would say more but i am too tiiiiired after dancing like a fish for 2 hours.


....

How exactly does a fish dance?
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

rosieposy87

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3394
  • Prat Twin #2
    • MSN Messenger - rosie_posy87@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - rosieposy87
    • View Profile
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #262 on: March 03, 2004, 10:42:23 am »
Quote from: "Grakthis"
Quote from: "rosieposy87"
Yeah, we did Utilitarianism (which i think is that actual name, so kev- that doesn't suck as much, you just can't spell it thats all  :wink: ) in ethics- like most of those theories "Good idea, CRAP in practice". Would say more but i am too tiiiiired after dancing like a fish for 2 hours.


....

How exactly does a fish dance?


Goodness knows! We have to study dance, but not conventional dance- basically just spazzing out in a routine. And i had to kinda flail my legs around and make swimming actions- closest to a fish i think! Cor blimey, that is going to hurt tommorrow!
"I'm all about the wordplay."

Grakthis

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3983
  • Lord Andrew
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Grakthis
    • View Profile
    • http://www.grakthis.com
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #263 on: March 03, 2004, 10:44:41 am »
Quote from: "rosieposy87"
Quote from: "Grakthis"
Quote from: "rosieposy87"
Yeah, we did Utilitarianism (which i think is that actual name, so kev- that doesn't suck as much, you just can't spell it thats all  :wink: ) in ethics- like most of those theories "Good idea, CRAP in practice". Would say more but i am too tiiiiired after dancing like a fish for 2 hours.


....

How exactly does a fish dance?


Goodness knows! We have to study dance, but not conventional dance- basically just spazzing out in a routine. And i had to kinda flail my legs around and make swimming actions- closest to a fish i think! Cor blimey, that is going to hurt tommorrow!


You said "blimey".  hehehehehehehehehehehe.

"Aw, crums chief!"

"Blimey, Penfold!"
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

rosieposy87

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3394
  • Prat Twin #2
    • MSN Messenger - rosie_posy87@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - rosieposy87
    • View Profile
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #264 on: March 03, 2004, 11:08:01 am »
'cor blimey' is my phrase of the moment- because it is probably something i am most unlikely to say.
"I'm all about the wordplay."

kev222

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3194
  • zero vector
    • AOL Instant Messenger - k3v222
    • View Profile
    • http://www.kev.nu/vc
    • Email
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #265 on: March 03, 2004, 03:45:41 pm »
Quote from: "Grakthis"
Lolin down rodeo with a shotgun! Hobbes couldn't play Double Dribble to save his ass.

Ahhh Double Dribble :) *remembers fondly a time when games were games*

And just when you though it was safe to log onto the board without having two read/write another essay like reply...

Quote from: "Grakthis"
Quote from: "kev222"
If I murdered a homeless man whom I'd never met, in a painless way and this man had no family or friends to suffer grief from his loss of life, then is that justified (i.e. should be legal) murder in the context of utility theory? There is no empirically demonstratable harm caused to anybody (including the victim, who suffers nothing for being dead according to everything purely empirical study can tell us).

Here is the reason you cannot kill the bum sans an existing social contract (this is more John Locke in nature because it relies on human compasion and empathy).  If you kill the bum and get away with it then society prospers in the short term because there is one less bum to support. BUT then even in utility theory, that means that if you were ever to become a bum with no family, someone else could kill you.  Now, assuming you are not insane, then you wouldn't want to be killed were you in that situation.  Therefore, killing the bum has specific costs with it (it is now ok to kill you in the same situation) and those costs eliminate it as a viable choice (no one wants to be killed).

If we replace the homeless man with a child suffering from down syndrome. Orphaned, abandoned, or simply unwanted by his/her family. There is no chance that the killer could enter into a situation that would permit them to be killed, because down syndrome is something you have from birth or you don't have for your entire life. Society also prospers slightly in terms of natural selection and in that it no longer needs to support the "victim".

Should it be legal under a system of "Natural Law" for consenting families to murder a child  because the child suffers from an undesireable genetic disorder like down syndrome? (Note: not under the existing mishmash system of law, but an "ideal" system of law based entirely on utilitarianism).

I'm going to assume that the answer to the above question is yes (if you can convince me that it's no, then the remainder of this post can be rejected). The current law does not permit this killing of people after birth. Why is this the case? It must be based on something non-empirical. What grounds are there for current law to accept these non-empirical considerations to support loss of rights for those who wish to kill their child and reject those proposed by the hypothetical person to support loss of rights for homosexual couples? Majority belief? Then surely Will is correct when he says.

Quote from: "m125_boy"
I believe that there is no such thing as objective law. Law is just morality forced upon others by either force or by consent of those who are being governed. The closest thing we have to objective law is a law in which the majority agrees with the majority of the law


-Kev

Grakthis

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3983
  • Lord Andrew
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Grakthis
    • View Profile
    • http://www.grakthis.com
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #266 on: March 03, 2004, 05:40:07 pm »
Quote from: "kev222"
If we replace the homeless man with a child suffering from down syndrome. Orphaned, abandoned, or simply unwanted by his/her family. There is no chance that the killer could enter into a situation that would permit them to be killed, because down syndrome is something you have from birth or you don't have for your entire life. Society also prospers slightly in terms of natural selection and in that it no longer needs to support the "victim".

Should it be legal under a system of "Natural Law" for consenting families to murder a child  because the child suffers from an undesireable genetic disorder like down syndrome? (Note: not under the existing mishmash system of law, but an "ideal" system of law based entirely on utilitarianism).

I'm going to assume that the answer to the above question is yes (if you can convince me that it's no, then the remainder of this post can be rejected). The current law does not permit this killing of people after birth. Why is this the case? It must be based on something non-empirical. What grounds are there for current law to accept these non-empirical considerations to support loss of rights for those who wish to kill their child and reject those proposed by the hypothetical person to support loss of rights for homosexual couples? Majority belief? Then surely Will is correct when he says.

Quote from: "m125_boy"
I believe that there is no such thing as objective law. Law is just morality forced upon others by either force or by consent of those who are being governed. The closest thing we have to objective law is a law in which the majority agrees with the majority of the law


-Kev


And here is where I flip it on you and turn your assumed "yes" into a "no".

You make several assumptions that I can break in your little CRT, or Current reality tree for those who aren't in the know :)  

For your question to come out with a "yes" you must assume ALL the following;

1) There is ever a condition underwhich a human child can be alive and not contribute something to the world

2) Human emotion can turn on the child and emotionally permit the killing of the child with no emotional or physical harm to the killer

3) The childs condition can be PERFECTLY diagnosed and can be PERFECTLY demonstrated

OR

1)  Survival resources are scarce


Without any of those three assumptions, then killing that child becomes immediatly immoral under natural law OR utility theory.

If the child provides happiness to you, then you cannot kill it.  If killing the child is morally reprehensible to you, then you cannot kill it.  If the child provides value to the rest of the world, if you fear that the child is misdiagnosed and have hope that it may recover, then you cannot kill it ... and even if killing it is ok to you, if it may not be to the rest of the world.. therefore the rest of the world may kill (or punish) you in response.

If you kill that child and it is accepted that all children with this condition should be killed then you may have the fear that your next child may be misdiagnosed with this same condition and would be unjustly killed.

In other words, IF mankind as a whole saw no intrinsic value in a human life AND we have perfect information concerning the child then yes, utility theory and natural law would both say that the child should die.

Look at the animal world.  Isn't that how things happen there?

HOWEVER, this is where the social contract comes into play.  Because the social contract says that all human life has an intrinsic value (which is innately felt, in one degree or another, by all humans as part of our survival instinct anyways) and therefore should be preserved.  In fact, it is one of the primary principles of the social contract.... all human life provides SOMETHING to society, be it labor, happiness, peace of mind, etc etc.

Therefore, even if that child has no intrinsic value to the parents the child DOES have value to society as a whole.  The social contract forces that heartless family to consider the good of all of society and, therefore, not kill the child.

Now, the one big BUT that gets thrown into this, is if we assume there are not enough resources in the 'market' to provide survival for all life.  In this case, the bottom must be trimmed off and if this hypothetical child is consuming resources that could be used to keep someone more valuable alive then the child should be killed under natural law.

Also, keep in mind, my point isn't that the government IS governed by natural law or utility theory.  It's that the government SHOULD be governed by it and LARGELY is.  There are a lot of exceptions you could dig up in law if you wanted to spend the time.  But I think most of them are slowly getting changed over from a religious morality to a rational morality...
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

tylor2000

  • You never thought it'd hurt so bad
  • *****
  • Posts: 2930
    • View Profile
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #267 on: March 03, 2004, 05:58:38 pm »
Quote from: "blackvulture"
Lev 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."



I don't lie to anyone.   erm........  I know men who lie to woman all the time though.  Just this past friday at a bar this guy I know, told this woman........

 :wink:

tylor

kev222

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3194
  • zero vector
    • AOL Instant Messenger - k3v222
    • View Profile
    • http://www.kev.nu/vc
    • Email
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #268 on: March 04, 2004, 03:33:43 am »
Quote from: "Grakthis"
And here is where I flip it on you and turn your assumed "yes" into a "no".

I see that you have learnt much from The Squad.



Quote from: "Grakthis"
You make several assumptions that I can break in your little CRT

Huh? Sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of my cathode ray tube.

-Kev

P.S. As for the point of debate, I have been pzwned. But you better pray we never meet on the double dribble court.

Grakthis

  • VCUBs
  • Keepin' secrets at midnight
  • *
  • Posts: 3983
  • Lord Andrew
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Grakthis
    • View Profile
    • http://www.grakthis.com
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #269 on: March 04, 2004, 05:57:56 am »
Quote from: "kev222"


What i wanna know is, if they are British, shouldn't it be Blasin' squad?!?

 :wink:
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew