What’s wrong with feeding the CM?
He thinks he the only one who knows the rules. Why deny him? He’s O so hungry. He has something else on his mind. I’d rather feed him some OM chow than what he really craves.
And what if it’s the cops that do so ? After all, they’d just be following your own philosophy if they beat you up and robbed you. You can’t even call them corrupt or unethical cops for doing so, since you deny that there’s any standard to judge them by.
Then I will go to their superiors. But, if ultimately, if the powers that be decide to do nothing, then I am screwed. There is very little the people in North Korea can do despite the their government being about an evil as gets from the subjective positions most of us hold.*
There is no absolute and objective good.
- I am assuming you are not North Korean government supporter.
And since clearance rates are less than 20% for property crimes and not more than about 60% for serious assault, the chances are very good that the gentlemen who beat you up or robbed you won’t have their lives fucked up even if you do go to the police. They will just have proven themselves to be more powerful than you. Stop calling them names and suck it up.
They’ll probably be sick of people bitching about such things. People have always been corrupt. What is your crying like a little baby likely to achieve?
If the police are corrupt and/or incompetent then I work to change that. Or maybe not, if they are really corrupt. Fortunately, the police are not that corrupt around. They are very good―all things considered. I am happy enough with the clearance rates you listed.
So if the people are not caught, I will just have to suck it up. What else am I going to do? Apply to absolute goodness to take care of the problem?
I have been (for the last couple of posts) parodying the attitude you showed in your earlier posts in this thread.
The OP is about people venting and discussing views on Iraq. Discussion is a key element in opinion formation. Opinions and opinion formation leads to, or may lead to, action. All the more so in the US and other nation participants in the Iraq fiasco as they are democracies.
You say in relation to the police corruption example that you would “work to change that”. Doing so would involve complaining and organising and discussing. Precisely like this OP, which you scoff at.
Yeah, because the real problem with the Iraq War is that there has not been enough discussion.
Agreed. There may be (indeed are) some people who think it might have been a good idea in the first place, and/or that it is a good idea to remain there, and/or that the 'Pubbies (who will be seeking re-election now or later) weren’t responsible for a massive fuckup. Discussing these issues is important. If you don’t think so, fuck off and do something else. Taking the time to enter this thread to suggest that discussion is useless is almost by definition even more useless than the thread can possibly be. What’s your real motivation?
Their belief in “absolute goodness” at least, or more likely their beleif in goodness in general. You certainly had better hope that they don’t agree with you, or they won’t even try.
Frankly, why should anyone care if there is such a thing as absolute good or not ? Human defined good works; imperfectly, but we live in an imperfect universe. Certainly it works better than the dog eat dog view you are pushing.
First, we do not live in an imperfect universe. There is no standard by which to judge a universe to perfect or imperfect. Our universe just is―perfection has nothing to do with it.
The thing about human defined good is that different people will define the good differently. Your understanding of good is different from mine, and both our understandings will be different from Kim Jong-il or Pope Benedict XVI or David Bowie. Is there any standard by which to judge which person’s understanding of the good is correct?
Presumably you apply this standard to the principles of forensic debate and intellectual honesty, which explains a great deal.
Yes there is; the human standard. Since we are the ones that invent and judge standards, those are the only standards that matter, until we run into aliens.
To a degree; I did say it was imperfect. Still, most people agree on the basics.
The welfare of people in general. How well the standard works. How well connected it is to reality. Evenhandedness; it’s not “good” if it just serves you.
All of which your “power is all that matters” nonsense fails.
Human standards are subjective to individuals. You can say that the universe is imperfect from your subjective perspective viewpoint, but you cannot say that is imperfect. There are imperfect circles, but not universes because there is no absolute and objective standard by which to judge a universe.
They do? What are the basics?
Why is that the standard? That is just another subjective viewpoint, and it is not even really followed. Civilizations I can think that did not/do not that think the general welfare of people is the standard to judge the good: Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, the British Empire, American, Saudi Arabia, Ancient Carthage, the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation, Tsarist Russia―do I need to go on?
Why should I care ? Human standards are good enough. You are the one who has a fetish for absolutes.
Food, shelter, lack of pain, personal safety, happiness, and freedom; the things people all want for themselves.
And to the extent they felt and acted that way, they were evil, and stupid. Your argument only works if you accept that all societies are good, and I don’t.
You are the one claiming that these standards are not not subjective.
Even you do not believe this (or you are hypocrite). You have luxuries while people are denied these basic things. You could help provide them at the cost of luxuries to yourself.
But you are claiming that the standards come from humans, then you give a standard that is not accepted by huge portion of humanity.
You have no idea how I live, or how much or how little I give to charity. For that mater, I’m one of those “evil” liberals who thinks that the government should take care of most of that; it’s more efficient and effective that way.
Of course it’s accepted by most humans. You know many people who are in favor of slavery, torture, starvation and so forth when it’s applied to themselves ? All this tough guy talk about the virtues of ruthlessness and how power is all that matters tends to vanish mighty fast when people are on the wrong end of it. And once they start saying that it’s acceptable for other people but not themselves, it’s not a “standard” at all.
The government is not going the job now, and you leaving them out to dry. I have seen you post on movies and such. Why are wasting all that money on movies when there are children starving who could use that money to stay alive.
(I don’t think you should put off the enjoyment of your life to better the lives of those worse off.)
Cite? Please include people from other cultures. And make sure it is not just what they claim to believe, but what they actually back up with action.
No. Please are selfish. They care more about themselves and their families than strangers.
Why not? That is the way most people function. The average American would not allow their own child to starve to death, but they do nothing for other children. They live by a standard of “me and mine.”
:rolleyes: My “cite” is that they are humans, and humans are humans everywhere.
Which is stupid, and evil, and something the more moral and sophisticated grow out of.
Because America is largely an evil, and thus self destructive and hypocritical culture.
Please name a few cultures where people have cared as much for strangers as for their own children.