Right and Wrong

[groundpounder]

lmao you just proved my pont. Later buddy.

It's point.

You wanna tangle with the pounder, you better bring your A game. There is no room for error, my young and condescending adversary

 

[All Else Failed]

It's point.

You wanna tangle with the pounder, you better bring your A game. There is no room for error, my young and condescending adversary

lmfao what are you?

 

[groundpounder]

Perhaps you should not take things so seriously, hmm?

Serious is as serious does.

Ah, I see. Once the proficient heat arrives, then it's time not to take things seriously. mmmmkay

Engage, or GTFO. If you choose to engage, like I said, bring that A game.

 

[All Else Failed]

Like I said, I'm going to respond in a little bit, M'kay internet tough guy? Keep it in your shorts until then.

 

[groundpounder]

lmfao what are you?

Someone who sees through enigmatic postings where disquiet about what you know about yourself resides. I see you for what you are.

And that's not a bad thing. You're getting there. Keep searching. But if you're going to post in a thread about right and wrong, your stance need not be ethereal. It needs to be bedrock.

 

[groundpounder]

Like I said, I'm going to respond in a little bit, M'kay internet tough guy? Keep it in your shorts until then.

again, with the collegiate insults. Raise the bar a little.

I haven't threatened you physically. You're reaching.

 

[groundpounder]

I've only completely engaged you intellectually, and I think that's a place where you find yourself a little vexed, as a relativist would in most cases.

 

[groundpounder]

I've only completely engaged you intellectually, and I think that's a place where you find yourself a little vexed, as a relativist would in most cases.

And by this I don't mean to imply that you are not intelligent.

Quite the contrary - you are very intelligent, so that needs no debate. I just want to see that intelligence applied in a concrete way in a defensive argument about when it's OK to murder a kid, just to get us back on task.

Saddle up!

 

[All Else Failed]

your posts are difficult to read correctly because they are so opaque. You said you're 'largely' a relativist, so I called you Mr. Relativist.
By 'largely,' you mean that you apply your relativism when it's convenient to make your point.



So when I say "Can you justify the indiscriminate killing of a young person, " you're saying that your largely relativistic outlook makes the question too vague? No, it doesn't. Can you or can't you? If you can, take a crack at telling me when it's justifiable to murder a child. If you can't then say so. How is that vague?
There's nothing vague about it, only the way you choose to answer, because relativist views are so diluted and dispersed, you cannot proffer an intelligent answer to justify it. Relatively speaking, of course.
Relativism allows you to come across as ambiguously intelligent, but only because it masks the fact that you have little or no clue as to what your core beliefs are and could not solidly defend them even if you knew.



Since you're so fond of saying, "Read my post correctly," I find it interesting that you immediately detach from the reality of mine and invoke "imaginary viruses" with conjured up consequences. What that allows you to do is not answer the question, which is right where you want to be.
I did not say "child with an 'imaginary virus' (LOVE that!!). I said wanton murder/indiscriminate killing.

Will your warped sense of relativism allow you to say that the wanton, indiscriminate killing/murder of children is OK or not OK?

Because see, now it's a matter of pride for you. In that you will not allow yourself to answer the question because to do so, you would have to kowtow to my pointing out of the fact that you have a hard time defending your core beliefs behind the shroud of anonymity of the internet and the fog of your highly regarded relativism. And your pride won't allow you to do that.

You think your relativism makes you high minded and socially evolved, when in practice it cripples you from knowing who you are.

Make a stand.

Ooooooooooooookkkkkkkkk I'm back from classes, and I was thinking about our going back and fourth and i would like to say that I think we both need to settle down a bit, and just be gentlemen. Lets start over.


I will respond paragraph by paragraph:


I do not take the position of a pure relativist, nor do I just use relativism to just make a point when I feel like it. I DO believe some things are objectively good, and objectively bad. For instance, I OBJECTIVELY think rape is always bad, I always think pollution is bad, I always think the striving for peace is always objectively good, and I always think love is one of the best ways to interact with one another albeit very difficult sometimes.



I define myself as mostly a relativist, because MOST things never have one single truth to them, there are some things, but they are few and far between, and I think that there is no ONE way to getting to the root of a problem or question. I do not think I am in the wrong when I say that not every situation calls for ONE way of solving it, or ONE distinct answer, like it's "wrong" or "right". I don't like to pigeon hold everything like that. I know what my core beliefs are, but even a staunch objectivist will have to admit that sometimes your core beliefs must stand up to subjective situations. For instance, an objectivist might say "killing is always bad!", and that would be an objective statement, but I would say to them, "what if someone is trying to kill you?" They would have to abandon their absolute objectivism on this situation and question their beliefs "ok, maybe killing in self defense isn't bad....so maybe universally saying killing is always bad is jumping the gun a bit." See what I mean?


I don't think its wrong to kill someone that was threatening me or others (YOUNG PERSON or otherwise), but ONLY after exhausting all other means of non-lethal force IF POSSIBLE.



The situation with the diseased child, although admittedly far fetched, was just a fanciful subjective situation I wanted you to answer. The example doesn't have to be real, just the moral of it has to be there, and my question to you was: Would you kill a child if it was a threat to everyone? Now, I DO believe that indiscriminate killing of people is not good. it doesn't benefit anyone and does not continue peace, like people should do everyday, it only creates divides and more violence, so I am objective on that subject. See? its not a matter of pride at all. I don't think of myself as some "coffee house philosopher" just because I think there isn't a clear answer for everything, in fact, I can promise you everyone is pretty relative in life everyday.


Those are my answers to you.

 

[groundpounder]

Ooooooooooooookkkkkkkkk I'm back from classes, and I was thinking about our going back and fourth and i would like to say that I think we both need to settle down a bit, and just be gentlemen. Lets start over.

It's "forth," as in "back and forth" not "first second third fourth"
That's a B game post. I will NOT let anything slide.

And I don't need to settle down or be a gentleman. That's because I have said nothing inflammatory, rude or boorish. Quite the contrary, in fact. My posts have been lucid, plain and distinctly non-threatening.

I do not take the position of a pure relativist, nor do I just use relativism to just make a point when I feel like it. I DO believe some things are objectively good, and objectively bad. For instance, I OBJECTIVELY think rape is always bad, I always think pollution is bad, I always think the striving for peace is always objectively good, and I always think love is one of the best ways to interact with one another albeit very difficult sometimes.



I define myself as mostly a relativist, because MOST things never have one single truth to them, there are some things, but they are few and far between, and I think that there is no ONE way to getting to the root of a problem or question. I do not think I am in the wrong when I say that not every situation calls for ONE way of solving it, or ONE distinct answer, like it's "wrong" or "right". I don't like to pigeon hold everything like that. I know what my core beliefs are, but even a staunch objectivist will have to admit that sometimes your core beliefs must stand up to subjective situations. For instance, an objectivist might say "killing is always bad!", and that would be an objective statement, but I would say to them, "what if someone is trying to kill you?" They would have to abandon their absolute objectivism on this situation and question their beliefs "ok, maybe killing in self defense isn't bad....so maybe universally saying killing is always bad is jumping the gun a bit." See what I mean?


I don't think its wrong to kill someone that was threatening me or others (YOUNG PERSON or otherwise), but ONLY after exhausting all other means of non-lethal force IF POSSIBLE.



The situation with the diseased child, although admittedly far fetched, was just a fanciful subjective situation I wanted you to answer. The example doesn't have to be real, just the moral of it has to be there, and my question to you was: Would you kill a child if it was a threat to everyone? Now, I DO believe that indiscriminate killing of people is not good. it doesn't benefit anyone and does not continue peace, like people should do everyday, it only creates divides and more violence, so I am objective on that subject. See? its not a matter of pride at all. I don't think of myself as some "coffee house philosopher" just because I think there isn't a clear answer for everything, in fact, I can promise you everyone is pretty relative in life everyday.


Those are my answers to you.

You have gone through a four paragraph silliloquoy to give me a greater understanding of your relative relativism. I applaud some of the points that you make and admire your positions on certain things, especially this one:
"MOST things never have one single truth to them, there are some things, but they are few and far between"

You have yet to answer the OP, although you got close with this previous quotation. All she was asking for was for us to provide what we felt had one single definition of wrong. You just said that (see quote) there are some things, and you alluded to them earlier (rape, pollution). Why must you argue so? Why don't you just answer the OP and say, "Grace, I think rape is always bad" I would agree with you and rep you BECAUSE IT IS. Forcing oneself sexually on another cannot be justified, objectively, subjectively or relatively.

And despite all of your well-orated points, you did not answer my question with your massive missive on existenialism:

When can you defend the wanton murder of a child?

You want to twist it and make it relative when wanton murder of a child is not relative. It's absolutely wrong. And then you throw it back to me in the form of a question (with ridiculous circumstances) without answering mine first. The red herrings you threw out there (self defense, some fantastical non existent disease with inordinately proportional ramifications) irritate me. Red herrings are unnecessary in this thread. It's a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

There are many many simple questions in the world today that require simple answers, but haughty "coffee shop philosophers" (LOVE that choice of words, BTW ) who think they are cultivated and enlightened, are only belaboring the issue at hand. This thread is a PERFECT example, and the irony of it is that I bet you won't be able to see why despite your self perceived and prideful open-mindedness.

 

[groundpounder]

Let me give you an example of how easy this should have been:

Do you believe that there are some actions that are absolutely wrong in all circumstances? Give examples.

Yes.
Wanton murder of children.
Rape.
Willful destruction of someone else's property without cause.


And you could go on with the other stuff in many different directions.

 

[Maritxu]

Let me give you an example of how easy this should have been:
Yes.
Wanton murder of children.
Rape.
Willful destruction of someone else's property without cause.


And you could go on with the other stuff in many different directions.

For God sakes guys, can you behave?
Well, I don't think I could consider myself a relativist, but I will offer you my opinion: the actions above are all wrong, the people who do them don't necessarily need to be bad. It all depends on the context (which by the way you reffered to as "without a cause" in the last one). For example, if you tell me you will kill all my family if I don't kill a kid, I am not bad because I do it, even though the action was wrong. I was driven by fear of losing someone I love and couldn't be a good judge of the situation. Or I could have schizophrenia and hear voices telling me to kill a child, just to give you some examples.
All I'm saying is that we are all so quick to judge people for their actions saying not that they acted wrong, but that they are bad people, when actually we judge ourseves differently. When it comes to judging ourselves, we admit the power of the context, and we don't generalize to our personality something bad we have done. I don't know why we don't do the same with the rest.

 

[All Else Failed]

It's "forth," as in "back and forth" not "first second third fourth"
That's a B game post. I will NOT let anything slide.

And I don't need to settle down or be a gentleman. That's because I have said nothing inflammatory, rude or boorish. Quite the contrary, in fact. My posts have been lucid, plain and distinctly non-threatening.



You have gone through a four paragraph silliloquoy to give me a greater understanding of your relative relativism. I applaud some of the points that you make and admire your positions on certain things, especially this one:
"MOST things never have one single truth to them, there are some things, but they are few and far between"

You have yet to answer the OP, although you got close with this previous quotation. All she was asking for was for us to provide what we felt had one single definition of wrong. You just said that (see quote) there are some things, and you alluded to them earlier (rape, pollution). Why must you argue so? Why don't you just answer the OP and say, "Grace, I think rape is always bad" I would agree with you and rep you BECAUSE IT IS. Forcing oneself sexually on another cannot be justified, objectively, subjectively or relatively.

And despite all of your well-orated points, you did not answer my question with your massive missive on existenialism:

When can you defend the wanton murder of a child?

You want to twist it and make it relative when wanton murder of a child is not relative. It's absolutely wrong. And then you throw it back to me in the form of a question (with ridiculous circumstances) without answering mine first. The red herrings you threw out there (self defense, some fantastical non existent disease with inordinately proportional ramifications) irritate me. Red herrings are unnecessary in this thread. It's a simple question, requiring a simple answer.

There are many many simple questions in the world today that require simple answers, but haughty "coffee shop philosophers" (LOVE that choice of words, BTW ) who think they are cultivated and enlightened, are only belaboring the issue at hand. This thread is a PERFECT example, and the irony of it is that I bet you won't be able to see why despite your self perceived and prideful open-mindedness.

Its soliloquy & existentialism. Where is your "A game" now? Funny how talk can only go so far. Now, what was that line you said earlier in the thread, hmm? "Bring your A game or GTFO?" or "There is no room for error" Yes, that was it.


And no, I do not think you can ever defend the wanton killing of a child, so your last paragraphs are void.

 

[GraceAbounds]

For God sakes guys, can you behave?
Well, I don't think I could consider myself a relativist, but I will offer you my opinion: the actions above are all wrong, the people who do them don't necessarily need to be bad. It all depends on the context (which by the way you reffered to as "without a cause" in the last one). For example, if you tell me you will kill all my family if I don't kill a kid, I am not bad because I do it, even though the action was wrong. I was driven by fear of losing someone I love and couldn't be a good judge of the situation. Or I could have schizophrenia and hear voices telling me to kill a child, just to give you some examples.
All I'm saying is that we are all so quick to judge people for their actions saying not that they acted wrong, but that they are bad people, when actually we judge ourseves differently. When it comes to judging ourselves, we admit the power of the context, and we don't generalize to our personality something bad we have done. I don't know why we don't do the same with the rest.

Excellent post Maria. :clap

 

[groundpounder]

Its soliloquy & existentialism. Where is your "A game" now? Funny how talk can only go so far. Now, what was that line you said earlier in the thread, hmm? "Bring your A game or GTFO?" or "There is no room for error" Yes, that was it.


And no, I do not think you can ever defend the wanton killing of a child, so your last paragraphs are void.

pwnt. If you're going to talk that noise like I did, yeah, you better at least have your spell check on!!!

 

[All Else Failed]

its ok man. lol


so yeah, I answered your question.

 

[groundpounder]

For God sakes guys, can you behave?

Where's the fun in THAT?!

the actions above are all wrong, the people who do them don't necessarily need to be bad. It all depends on the context (which by the way you reffered to as "without a cause" in the last one).

good people are put in the position to do bad things all the time. I agree that context is important, and your example of killing a child to save your family is a good one for context. Still, the killing is BAD but that onus is not necessarily on th perp, but the people forcing that heinous action on an otherwise good person.

 

[groundpounder]

its ok man. lol

typos FTL!!!:cool

so yeah, I answered your question.

good to see you on board with that whole killing-kids-is-bad thing.

 

[All Else Failed]

typos FTL!!!:cool




good to see you on board with that whole killing-kids-is-bad thing.

Yup.


Self defense is another thing though.

 

[groundpounder]

Self defense is another thing though.

Against a kid trying to kill you?