Author Topic: This Is Very Important To Me  (Read 55073 times)

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 #240 on: March 01, 2004, 12:53:14 pm »
Quote from: "rosieposy87"


LOOK! Its that t-shirt you have Scum! Fancy that!


I would so wear that.  Every American would look at me like I'm nuts.... but I'd know how funny it is.

@ Kev - You gotta figure, right?  I mean, atleast N'Sync and BsB had some musical integrity.
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 #241 on: March 01, 2004, 12:57:34 pm »
"At least there's the lyric sheet to make you smile. It's mostly generic nonsense from the Ali G dictionary but there are a few gems, not least the contribution of crew member Freek to 'All About The Music'. Consider: "I'll thrive on your blood, hungry for your skin/chop up your bones, and put you in my tin/I'm the brother of the devil, and the master of Satan/I'm the feeling in your body, and I'm gonna make you cringe." Excellent. "


A very complementary review:
http://uk.launch.yahoo.com/l_reviews_a/27408.html
"I'm all about the wordplay."

LimeTwister

  • Guest
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #242 on: March 01, 2004, 12:59:18 pm »
thread snatchersssssssssssss.

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 #243 on: March 01, 2004, 01:02:35 pm »
Quote from: "LimeTwister"
thread snatchersssssssssssss.


All your thread are belong to us.
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

jessica73

  • You aren't tryin'
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
    • MSN Messenger - cloud_strife_73@hotmail.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - bluedragonrider1
    • View Profile
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/dragonknight337/
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #244 on: March 01, 2004, 02:40:53 pm »
Well, damn.

The 'All your base are belong to us.' and the game it is from now sucks.
Starbuck is mai waifu

snapple936

  • Just a day, just an ordinary day
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Snapple936
    • View Profile
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #245 on: March 01, 2004, 04:31:58 pm »
Quote from: "Grakthis"
Quote from: "snapple936"
and andrew :-) i just learned how to use the quote feature, so i go a little crazy sometimes. i'll be YOUR best friend if you keep arguing like you do. it's funny shit.

kelley



hehehehe.  I will be more than happy to continue my aguing :)

I <3 Your Sig.  If I were Gay, I'd so jump Chris.  He's so tiny!!!



if i weren't gay i'd jump chris! oh. wait. yes. haha


ooooooh andrew you are a card :-)!   and i <3 THAT!

kelley
...i'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, the sinners are much more fun, you know that only the good

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 #246 on: March 02, 2004, 11:35:59 am »
Quote from: "Grakthis"
This is a question at the ROOT of philosophy and morality. How do you define "right" and "wrong". This could run into another 25 page thread if we let it.  
 
There are actually a TON of great works on this ranging from Plato, to Augustine to Kant.
 
The american public is STILL reaching for an answer to this question. And right now we have laws that are clearly based in 3 or 4 DIFFERENT views of morality. However, seemingly, we are moving towards a stance of "if it doesn't hurt me, you can do it."  
 
More of a UTILITY theory of morality. Which is very much so a part of the libertarian stance of politics. Which is, in MANY ways, the exact stance I agree with. You should be allowed to do anything you want to yourself or with/to another consenting adult AS LONG as it does not hurt anyone outside of the consenting group.  
 
The argument, in my mind, is DOES GAY MARRIAGE hurt anyone else. (BTW, I think you have to draw the line for "anyone else" somewhere too. You have to draw it at "normal rational human beings". In other words, if a weirdo gets offended by the color green, I can't be expected to stop wearing it).  
 
Clearly, murder hurts other people. But does doing drugs? That's up for debate. Does being gay? I see no evidence for this, but it is possible. If it were shown that a majority of the US population is very distinctly offended and hurt by homosexual couples then clearly it should be illegal. But I don't think that is the case because there is not "utility theory" reason for it to hurt people.

Clearly a person's preferred political stance is a product of their stance on morality. So any argument for/against homosexual marriage is only as strong as the case for the system of morality on which it's based. It doesn't appear that anybody has a definitive answer to the question of defining "right" and "wrong", so it follows that nobody can claim (with a straight face) to have a definitive answer to the political issue of homosexual marriage. They can only claim to have the final answer within their own moral frame of reference.
 
However after saying that, I do see that there is a reason beyond just personal preference to favour one morality over another. A person's ideas of morality are a result of their worldview. A Christian believes in God and that God makes the rules for his creation, which gives rise to biblical morality. Muslims believe in a different god and that he makes different rules, which gives rise to another morality. Most atheists, agnostics and those with belief in a personal god, probably believe that humans make up their own rules. Utility theory falls out of these latter worldviews because it represents the maximum amount of freedom people can have without the fear of going to the shops and getting their legs broken or wallet stolen, all quite legally. To me it seems that any position on morality and it's attached political positions can indeed be attacked on the strength (or lack thereof) of the underlying worldview.
 
So my point after all this is that if somebody (*cough Rosie *cough* ;-)) wishes to suggest (credibly) that Blackvulture's position on this amendment is unacceptable because "Its people like you that are generalising your beliefs to a wider population assuming the Bible is inerrant- which is clearly not the case," then they had better be bringing some evidence to the table and be prepared to back it up. It should also be noted that anybody supporting this amendment isn't necessarily trying to impose their beliefs onto a wider population just their morality, which is exactly what everybody who has signed the petition is also trying to do. Similarly (*cough* Andrew *cough*) labeling blackvulture a bigot, while it may well be true, does not achieve anything for your cause or against his, everyone's a bigot and the question is only which bigotry is the best bigotry.
 
Of course, nobody lets go of their worldview without a fight, and so debate in that area will never end. But neither side of the debate gets a free ride. Am I right or what?
 
-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 #247 on: March 02, 2004, 11:49:03 am »
Quote from: "kev222"
Quote from: "Grakthis"
This is a question at the ROOT of philosophy and morality. How do you define "right" and "wrong". This could run into another 25 page thread if we let it.  
 
There are actually a TON of great works on this ranging from Plato, to Augustine to Kant.
 
The american public is STILL reaching for an answer to this question. And right now we have laws that are clearly based in 3 or 4 DIFFERENT views of morality. However, seemingly, we are moving towards a stance of "if it doesn't hurt me, you can do it."  
 
More of a UTILITY theory of morality. Which is very much so a part of the libertarian stance of politics. Which is, in MANY ways, the exact stance I agree with. You should be allowed to do anything you want to yourself or with/to another consenting adult AS LONG as it does not hurt anyone outside of the consenting group.  
 
The argument, in my mind, is DOES GAY MARRIAGE hurt anyone else. (BTW, I think you have to draw the line for "anyone else" somewhere too. You have to draw it at "normal rational human beings". In other words, if a weirdo gets offended by the color green, I can't be expected to stop wearing it).  
 
Clearly, murder hurts other people. But does doing drugs? That's up for debate. Does being gay? I see no evidence for this, but it is possible. If it were shown that a majority of the US population is very distinctly offended and hurt by homosexual couples then clearly it should be illegal. But I don't think that is the case because there is not "utility theory" reason for it to hurt people.

Clearly a person's preferred political stance is a product of their stance on morality. So any argument for/against homosexual marriage is only as strong as the case for the system of morality on which it's based. It doesn't appear that anybody has a definitive answer to the question of defining "right" and "wrong", so it follows that nobody can claim (with a straight face) to have a definitive answer to the political issue of homosexual marriage. They can only claim to have the final answer within their own moral frame of reference.
 
However after saying that, I do see that there is a reason beyond just personal preference to favour one morality over another. A person's ideas of morality are a result of their worldview. A Christian believes in God and that God makes the rules for his creation, which gives rise to biblical morality. Muslims believe in a different god and that he makes different rules, which gives rise to another morality. Most atheists, agnostics and those with belief in a personal god, probably believe that humans make up their own rules. Utility theory falls out of these latter worldviews because it represents the maximum amount of freedom people can have without the fear of going to the shops and getting their legs broken or wallet stolen, all quite legally. To me it seems that any position on morality and it's attached political positions can indeed be attacked on the strength (or lack thereof) of the underlying worldview.
 
So my point after all this is that if somebody (*cough Rosie *cough* ;-)) wishes to suggest (credibly) that Blackvulture's position on this amendment is unacceptable because "Its people like you that are generalising your beliefs to a wider population assuming the Bible is inerrant- which is clearly not the case," then they had better be bringing some evidence to the table and be prepared to back it up. It should also be noted that anybody supporting this amendment isn't necessarily trying to impose their beliefs onto a wider population just their morality, which is exactly what everybody who has signed the petition is also trying to do. Similarly (*cough* Andrew *cough*) labeling blackvulture a bigot, while it may well be true, does not achieve anything for your cause or against his, everyone's a bigot and the question is only which bigotry is the best bigotry.
 
Of course, nobody lets go of their worldview without a fight, and so debate in that area will never end. But neither side of the debate gets a free ride. Am I right or what?
 
-Kev


Yes.  You are right on 99% of your points.

BUT you leave out some other key points and implications.

The largest being that Utility theory is inherantly a part of every other system of morality.  Most "divinely inspired" systems of morality declare that God reveals some rights and wrongs through observation and experience and others are revealed only through faith and an internal feeling of "right" and "wrong" that western philosophy often calls a conscience.

Therefore, Utility theory should directly be a part of EVERY morality, just different moralities justify it in different ways.  Ujustified murder is readily and apparently wrong, therefore it is a part of all rational morality.  Now, the point of debate for us is, once again, if allowing gay marriage really is empyrically OK.  Obviously, I feel the answer is "yes" because it don't see any evidence that it does harm to the rest of the people in the world.  Someone may be able to argue for a "no", but I have yet to see a good argument there.

I think EVERYONE in this thread would agree that people should be allowed to BELIEVE whatever they want.  This is a basic premise of the United States and western civilization as we know it.

So if we assume that everyone should be entitled to their own system of morality, then the question becomes, "What system of morality can we base LAW'S on that will not infringe on the rights of of the people to have their own personal morality?"

When that becomes the question, the answer must be "Utility Theory".  The only morality that is defineable and explainable using empyrical evidence and debate.  The only morality that is based in facts and reality and not simply in beliefs or intuition or "forms" that exist outside of the material realm.

THEREFORE, while I fully support Rosie and Kev's right to believe in their own system of morality (even when I diverges from my own) I disagree with their right to convert their personal morality to LAW.

Law's should be objective, not subjective.

Which is largely why most American's feel that Abortion is wrong, but it is still legal in the US.  Empyrically, there is nothing wrong with abortion.  You cannot prove to me that abortion harms anyone and often times it saves the mother from a lot of pain and unhappiness.

But morally, I still feel it is wrong.  But I have no desire to impose my personal morality on the rest of the world.
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

Will

  • Moderators
  • Fine as dandelions
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
  • Advanced anti-spam registrations filter
    • View Profile
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #248 on: March 02, 2004, 12:37:19 pm »
Andrew, 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.

You state that "Unjustified murder is readily and apparently wrong, therefore it is a part of all rational morality." That is not entirely accurate. I was reading something by a Satanist of some variety and he stated that the most moral thing is to act in your own interests, regardless of the effects that such an action would have on others. This includes murdering for one's gain. I would classify his moral system as a rational one as it is internally consistent based on the postulates inherent in that form of morality. His position is inconsistent with our entire concept of law.

That is but one example. Objective law is a myth, albeit a beautiful and compelling one.
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." -Ozzy Osborne

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 #249 on: March 02, 2004, 01:33:21 pm »
Quote from: "m125 Boy"
Andrew, 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.

You state that "Unjustified murder is readily and apparently wrong, therefore it is a part of all rational morality." That is not entirely accurate. I was reading something by a Satanist of some variety and he stated that the most moral thing is to act in your own interests, regardless of the effects that such an action would have on others. This includes murdering for one's gain. I would classify his moral system as a rational one as it is internally consistent based on the postulates inherent in that form of morality. His position is inconsistent with our entire concept of law.

That is but one example. Objective law is a myth, albeit a beautiful and compelling one.


Any satanist who argued this, did so poorly.  He was too busy looking at the short term.

if it were ALLOWED for you to murder someone else for your own gain, then it would also be allowed for someone else to murder you for their own gain.  Thereby, greatly endangering your own life.

Only via the Hobbesian Social Contract can we enable the greatest safety and happiness for all.

Hence, your argument is wrong.  And your satanist author's argument is wrong.

This is well tread philisophical ground.  Google up Hobbes and that should be enough to get you started.
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

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 #250 on: March 02, 2004, 02:15:19 pm »
Quote from: "Grakthis"
[Insert lots of stuff about utility theory and the law here]

Okay *penny drops* I concede the point.

This is all starting to sound very familiar. I had a similar discussion on the evboard with a guy named EternalJester about the current basis for law. We spoke in terms of pragmatism, which I am guessing is the philosophical core of utility theory (?)

As much as I think both of our crumbling nations would benefit from a biblical sytem of law rather than a law based on utility theory. And as much as I think law makers are in for a rude awakening when they discover a whole bunch of non-material things they didn't factor into the law when they gambled on pure material consideration. Under the current system, there is no grounds for a forced ban on gay "marriage".

As a (potentially) final question. EJ made the following argument for legal murder under a totally pragmatic system of law. What's your position on it. Not do you think it's moral, but should it be legal?

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).

-Kev

P.S. Utility theory <--- Worst theory name evar!!1!`

Katia's Lover

  • I'd Walk A Thousand Miles...
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
    • AOL Instant Messenger - GSUCarltonFan
    • View Profile
    • http://www.southern-connection.com
    • Email
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #251 on: March 02, 2004, 02:19:42 pm »
You people are way too stupid.
katiakaysha: you win
katiakaysha: you're right

I'm on a mission to piss the world off.  Is it your turn yet?!

http://losersareentertaining.blogspot.com/

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 #252 on: March 03, 2004, 05:59:35 am »
Quote from: "kev222"
Quote from: "Grakthis"
[Insert lots of stuff about utility theory and the law here]

Okay *penny drops* I concede the point.

This is all starting to sound very familiar. I had a similar discussion on the evboard with a guy named EternalJester about the current basis for law. We spoke in terms of pragmatism, which I am guessing is the philosophical core of utility theory (?)

As much as I think both of our crumbling nations would benefit from a biblical sytem of law rather than a law based on utility theory. And as much as I think law makers are in for a rude awakening when they discover a whole bunch of non-material things they didn't factor into the law when they gambled on pure material consideration. Under the current system, there is no grounds for a forced ban on gay "marriage".

As a (potentially) final question. EJ made the following argument for legal murder under a totally pragmatic system of law. What's your position on it. Not do you think it's moral, but should it be legal?

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).

-Kev

P.S. Utility theory <--- Worst theory name evar!!1!`


You believed Machiavelli?!?  Punk'd! lol.

Thomas Hobbes pwns j000000!!!!  (well, not entirely... as Hobbes did support concepts of abstract morality... but lets focus on his Natural Law and Social Contract for a minute).

There are actually 2 answers.  The first one I wil gloss over because it is not what you are looking for, BUT because we live in a society with a Social Contract it is ILLEGAL to kill the bum, therefore the cost is being put in jail or worse (Very Hobbes.. enforced morality due to fear of punishment).  But this is tautology at it's best because we are using the end result to justify its own existance.

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

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

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 #253 on: March 03, 2004, 06:02:09 am »
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!!
If you are reading this, you are probably on my ignore list.  Click here to return the favor

Wagella Wrote:Yay for Bigotry!!

---Andrew

Katia's Lover

  • I'd Walk A Thousand Miles...
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
    • AOL Instant Messenger - GSUCarltonFan
    • View Profile
    • http://www.southern-connection.com
    • Email
This Is Very Important To Me
« Reply #254 on: March 03, 2004, 07:44:42 am »
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
katiakaysha: you win
katiakaysha: you're right

I'm on a mission to piss the world off.  Is it your turn yet?!

http://losersareentertaining.blogspot.com/