Evil is whatever I say it is. Anyone who claims that it is something other than what I claim it is is factually incorrect (some magical being whose opinions override everyone else's for some reason told me that my morals are correct)!
As I said before, believing that you'll be able to kill someone when you get the gun and actually being able to do it are two different things. At the last second, they could (perhaps too fast for them to even think about) not want to kill them, so they pull the . All I really did was speak of an unlikely scenario (because the comment I replied to seemed to claim that there are absolutely zero scenarios where it would not be "acceptable" to shoot someone with a gun without the intention of killing them immediately).
As a former Marine I have a bit of knowledge and experience on the subject so I can say this with reasonable certainty: there are very few places you can shoot a person that does not carry the serious risk of death, and those places that are "safe" (and I use the term *very* loosely) tend to be places that would not incapacitate a determined attacker.
You're probably right, but there are places that, when shot, won't kill them almost immediately, right? That's all I meant.
I only said that it was probably within the realm of possibility. If such a thing happened (as unlikely as it is), I wouldn't really blame the person too much. I just wouldn't care.
What is this scenario anyway?
It could be about someone who thought they were prepared to kill someone, but were not. They fail to do so at the last second.
Imagining that a gun will help you without killing your target and actually being able to do it when the situation arises are two different things.
Actually, they don't even have to imagine it. It might happen on accident (they might, at the last second, pull back and decide to shoot them elsewhere to avoid killing them), or it might
Let me spell it out for you: GUNS ARE LETHAL WEAPONS. Any time you use a gun, you have the potential to kill someone.
You seem to be ignoring the very specific scenario that I laid out for you. You're cornered, someone dangerous is approaching you, you don't want to kill them (even if you can't think clearly or fast enough), and you can't overpower them with anything except a gun. You will die if you do not use the gun.
Your kind of thinking will result in pulling a gun in a situation where it is not absolutely necessary to protect your life
It does seem as if you ignored my scenario. And this isn't something I'd personally do. This is just a scenario that I came up with.
But that is something you have to be prepared to do if you're using a firearm.
Even if that is true, imagining that you'll be able to kill someone and actually being able to do it when the situation arises are two different things.
If you are not mentally prepared to shoot to kill, you probably shouldn't carry a gun - try a taser, or a baseball bat instead.
And if you're cornered and can't overpower them with anything else but you still don't want to kill them?
Seriously, trying to shoot someone in a leg is just going to increase the likelihood that you injure a bystander
Too bad. Some people can't think too well in such a situation (but they could let their emotions get the better of them).
as well as leaving you open to all sorts of legal trouble
I'd say that's a problem with the law.
if you're in fear for your life, shoot to kill.
That's easy to say when you're someone that has no problem killing someone that is trying to hurt and/or kill you. Not so much if you're not. Probably. I'm just speaking of a possible scenario.
You don't have enough time to get away from him if you're cornered. Not only that, but the mere fact that someone was shot in the leg does not necessarily mean that the shooter took a long time to aim. It could be a lucky shot, or they could be very skilled. However, their hesitation to kill the person still remained in either case. If you actually manage to do this and are willing to take the risk that it brings, I do not see the problem.
Exactly. Don't shoot them in a place that could kill them. If you're saying not to use a gun at all, then what if you don't believe you'll be able to overpower them without the gun, but still do not want to kill them? What are your options then?
If you can shoot someone without the intention of killing them, you shouldn't have shot them at all
What if you felt that they were indeed a threat to your life, but couldn't kill them (either because you would feel bad, or because you simply didn't want to for some reason)? Why isn't that possible?
The guy you are replying to has the correct attitude.
Saying that subjective things don't matter because they are subjective is circular reasoning and doesn't answer question.
Alright, then I'll answer your question: because I just don't care about them.
Does this mean you only care about things that can be absolutely proven to be factually real and true?
No. I accept what I see around me and typically only believe in things that have been scientifically proven to a certain degree. I'm not sure that anything can be absolutely proven.
that doesn't mean it doesn't matter or isn't real.
Well, it doesn't matter to me (even if it is real).
If life was nothing but cold, hard facts, with no feeling associated with it, I think that would be pretty boring.
I think so, too. However, I said nothing of the sort. I meant that I don't care if someone comes to the conclusion that oxygen doesn't exist because that belief gives them comfort (perhaps I communicated that poorly). I'm going to need some scientific evidence to prove that if you want me to believe it.
I believe that, for most things, using emotion to try to prove something is absolutely futile. That's why I don't care about them.
If you will indulge my curiosity, tell me: what do you consider important, and why?
Empathy is not JUST important for view points ONLY reached through emotion, it is important for ALL view points because regardless of what people would like to believe, the vast majority of human brains will use emotion as a component of reaching a view point in almost every situation and circumstance they can be put in.
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I believe that you can easily thrive while not using emotions or empathy.
which is the way that you have stated you are interested in understanding view points
Only for information that I deem useful. I don't deem emotions as useful.
I guess my point is that I don't care about their point of view. Viewpoints reached only through emotion or preferences do not matter to me. They may affect me at times, and I may occasionally try to convince them to rethink their position, but it's ultimately pretty pointless to me. It's subjective for a reason.
Well, if we're just talking about accepted standards and such, you'd have a point. Must people do probably find it "bad." However, he just said that it was "bad."
Believing you can understand someone's position and how they came to it without empathizing is a dangerous path.
Well, I suppose if they reached their position entirely based on preference or emotions, you'd have a point. But, then again, I don't care about understanding those types of viewpoints.
Their subjective view is objective information to your reality
Only in that it exists (probably).
because it affects their actions, and their actions affect you.
It can't be helped.
Without empathy you can convince yourself that you understand people, but you cannot truly understand them.
You could understand it without empathy if their reasons for reaching their viewpoint include more than just emotion or preference. Assuming facts exist, that is.
I don't think it's a very good way to describe it because the situations are quite different. Typically, when someone thinks of theft, they probably think of the loss of physical property, not the loss of a mere idea (or a "right").
And you've just deprived someone of the ability to believe that copyright infringement isn't the exact same thing as theft! You thief!
I'd argue it doesn't matter if one or two people stealing TVs actually think they are taking a principled stand on something and they're morally justified.
Not all of them were looting and destroying things, correct? And whether or not they are morally justified is, in my opinion, subjective.
Such people are not the majority
And?
and they're deluded anyway.
I don't think that's a very good argument.
If you have a problem with that generalization, why exactly?
Because if not all of them are doing it for the reasons that you stated, then your generalization would be incorrect.
it follows that someone wishing to employ logic to guide them should see empathy
I don't see why. Just understand their position and how they came to it (if that's even relevant information). Their subjective point of view is, to me, irrelevant (because it's subjective). Well, I suppose you would need to empathize with other people... if you wanted to empathize with them in the first place.
Christ, you're really banging the moral relativism drum today aren't you?:P
I suppose so. But it looks like there's quite a few people who not only just believe in absolute morals, but think that their existence has been proven beyond a doubt.
I will argue that looting is bad regardless of one's morals, since condemnation is built into the meaning of the word.
Well, there appears to be multiple definitions of looting, and I don't see where they have the word "bad" or anything similar in them.
I don't think that the rioters all have the same idea as to why they're doing it, either. There might be some who are doing it for exactly those reasons. Who knows? I don't think that you or I can say what they are thinking.
It's morally wrong to encourage people to do violence.
That's just your opinion. There are people who disagree. But, unless you can prove that the magical moral fairy whose opinions override everyone else's (for some reason) told you that it is factually morally wrong, you're not going to convince me that that is true.
This is apart from the reality of how mobs, stewing in emotion and adrenaline, can be triggered by hostile inciting speeches.
Then I guess it's a shame that they're so easily influenced. Too bad.
If most people agree it is wrong, then wouldn't you call that universal, or close to it?
Calling it universal would be wrong. Because it wouldn't be.
And a lot of people believing something does not make it true. And by "universally wrong," I meant that some magical force whose opinions are absolute decides whether something is factually "right" or "wrong." Or however the people who believe in absolute morals believe the "correct" moral code is "decided."
And for what reason? This DRM that is probably useless to almost everyone? You don't want cheating in multiplayer? Then simply don't allow single player accounts to be used for multiplayer (like games have already done).
Slashdot Mirror
Evil is whatever I say it is. Anyone who claims that it is something other than what I claim it is is factually incorrect (some magical being whose opinions override everyone else's for some reason told me that my morals are correct)!
As I said before, believing that you'll be able to kill someone when you get the gun and actually being able to do it are two different things. At the last second, they could (perhaps too fast for them to even think about) not want to kill them, so they pull the . All I really did was speak of an unlikely scenario (because the comment I replied to seemed to claim that there are absolutely zero scenarios where it would not be "acceptable" to shoot someone with a gun without the intention of killing them immediately).
As a former Marine I have a bit of knowledge and experience on the subject so I can say this with reasonable certainty: there are very few places you can shoot a person that does not carry the serious risk of death, and those places that are "safe" (and I use the term *very* loosely) tend to be places that would not incapacitate a determined attacker.
You're probably right, but there are places that, when shot, won't kill them almost immediately, right? That's all I meant.
You seem to think your scenario makes sense.
I only said that it was probably within the realm of possibility. If such a thing happened (as unlikely as it is), I wouldn't really blame the person too much. I just wouldn't care.
What is this scenario anyway?
It could be about someone who thought they were prepared to kill someone, but were not. They fail to do so at the last second.
Imagining that a gun will help you without killing your target and actually being able to do it when the situation arises are two different things.
Actually, they don't even have to imagine it. It might happen on accident (they might, at the last second, pull back and decide to shoot them elsewhere to avoid killing them), or it might
Let me spell it out for you: GUNS ARE LETHAL WEAPONS. Any time you use a gun, you have the potential to kill someone.
You seem to be ignoring the very specific scenario that I laid out for you. You're cornered, someone dangerous is approaching you, you don't want to kill them (even if you can't think clearly or fast enough), and you can't overpower them with anything except a gun. You will die if you do not use the gun.
Your kind of thinking will result in pulling a gun in a situation where it is not absolutely necessary to protect your life
It does seem as if you ignored my scenario. And this isn't something I'd personally do. This is just a scenario that I came up with.
But that is something you have to be prepared to do if you're using a firearm.
Even if that is true, imagining that you'll be able to kill someone and actually being able to do it when the situation arises are two different things.
If you are not mentally prepared to shoot to kill, you probably shouldn't carry a gun - try a taser, or a baseball bat instead.
And if you're cornered and can't overpower them with anything else but you still don't want to kill them?
Seriously, trying to shoot someone in a leg is just going to increase the likelihood that you injure a bystander
Too bad. Some people can't think too well in such a situation (but they could let their emotions get the better of them).
as well as leaving you open to all sorts of legal trouble
I'd say that's a problem with the law.
if you're in fear for your life, shoot to kill.
That's easy to say when you're someone that has no problem killing someone that is trying to hurt and/or kill you. Not so much if you're not. Probably. I'm just speaking of a possible scenario.
You don't have enough time to get away from him if you're cornered. Not only that, but the mere fact that someone was shot in the leg does not necessarily mean that the shooter took a long time to aim. It could be a lucky shot, or they could be very skilled. However, their hesitation to kill the person still remained in either case. If you actually manage to do this and are willing to take the risk that it brings, I do not see the problem.
Exactly. Don't shoot them in a place that could kill them. If you're saying not to use a gun at all, then what if you don't believe you'll be able to overpower them without the gun, but still do not want to kill them? What are your options then?
If you can shoot someone without the intention of killing them, you shouldn't have shot them at all
What if you felt that they were indeed a threat to your life, but couldn't kill them (either because you would feel bad, or because you simply didn't want to for some reason)? Why isn't that possible?
The guy you are replying to has the correct attitude.
Some might disagree.
Saying that subjective things don't matter because they are subjective is circular reasoning and doesn't answer question.
Alright, then I'll answer your question: because I just don't care about them.
Does this mean you only care about things that can be absolutely proven to be factually real and true?
No. I accept what I see around me and typically only believe in things that have been scientifically proven to a certain degree. I'm not sure that anything can be absolutely proven.
that doesn't mean it doesn't matter or isn't real.
Well, it doesn't matter to me (even if it is real).
If life was nothing but cold, hard facts, with no feeling associated with it, I think that would be pretty boring.
I think so, too. However, I said nothing of the sort. I meant that I don't care if someone comes to the conclusion that oxygen doesn't exist because that belief gives them comfort (perhaps I communicated that poorly). I'm going to need some scientific evidence to prove that if you want me to believe it.
I believe that, for most things, using emotion to try to prove something is absolutely futile. That's why I don't care about them.
If you will indulge my curiosity, tell me: what do you consider important, and why?
I don't know.
Empathy is not JUST important for view points ONLY reached through emotion, it is important for ALL view points because regardless of what people would like to believe, the vast majority of human brains will use emotion as a component of reaching a view point in almost every situation and circumstance they can be put in.
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I believe that you can easily thrive while not using emotions or empathy.
which is the way that you have stated you are interested in understanding view points
Only for information that I deem useful. I don't deem emotions as useful.
We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.
I guess so.
I guess my point is that I don't care about their point of view. Viewpoints reached only through emotion or preferences do not matter to me. They may affect me at times, and I may occasionally try to convince them to rethink their position, but it's ultimately pretty pointless to me. It's subjective for a reason.
Well, if we're just talking about accepted standards and such, you'd have a point. Must people do probably find it "bad." However, he just said that it was "bad."
Believing you can understand someone's position and how they came to it without empathizing is a dangerous path.
Well, I suppose if they reached their position entirely based on preference or emotions, you'd have a point. But, then again, I don't care about understanding those types of viewpoints.
Their subjective view is objective information to your reality
Only in that it exists (probably).
because it affects their actions, and their actions affect you.
It can't be helped.
Without empathy you can convince yourself that you understand people, but you cannot truly understand them.
You could understand it without empathy if their reasons for reaching their viewpoint include more than just emotion or preference. Assuming facts exist, that is.
I don't think it's a very good way to describe it because the situations are quite different. Typically, when someone thinks of theft, they probably think of the loss of physical property, not the loss of a mere idea (or a "right").
And you've just deprived someone of the ability to believe that copyright infringement isn't the exact same thing as theft! You thief!
I'd argue it doesn't matter if one or two people stealing TVs actually think they are taking a principled stand on something and they're morally justified.
Not all of them were looting and destroying things, correct? And whether or not they are morally justified is, in my opinion, subjective.
Such people are not the majority
And?
and they're deluded anyway.
I don't think that's a very good argument.
If you have a problem with that generalization, why exactly?
Because if not all of them are doing it for the reasons that you stated, then your generalization would be incorrect.
it follows that someone wishing to employ logic to guide them should see empathy
I don't see why. Just understand their position and how they came to it (if that's even relevant information). Their subjective point of view is, to me, irrelevant (because it's subjective). Well, I suppose you would need to empathize with other people... if you wanted to empathize with them in the first place.
Christ, you're really banging the moral relativism drum today aren't you? :P
I suppose so. But it looks like there's quite a few people who not only just believe in absolute morals, but think that their existence has been proven beyond a doubt.
I will argue that looting is bad regardless of one's morals, since condemnation is built into the meaning of the word.
Well, there appears to be multiple definitions of looting, and I don't see where they have the word "bad" or anything similar in them.
The riots aren't about ideology or protests.
I don't think that the rioters all have the same idea as to why they're doing it, either. There might be some who are doing it for exactly those reasons. Who knows? I don't think that you or I can say what they are thinking.
It's morally wrong to encourage people to do violence.
That's just your opinion. There are people who disagree. But, unless you can prove that the magical moral fairy whose opinions override everyone else's (for some reason) told you that it is factually morally wrong, you're not going to convince me that that is true.
This is apart from the reality of how mobs, stewing in emotion and adrenaline, can be triggered by hostile inciting speeches.
Then I guess it's a shame that they're so easily influenced. Too bad.
looting is bad
That would depend on your morals. But a lot of people, if not most, probably do find it "bad."
If most people agree it is wrong, then wouldn't you call that universal, or close to it?
Calling it universal would be wrong. Because it wouldn't be.
And a lot of people believing something does not make it true. And by "universally wrong," I meant that some magical force whose opinions are absolute decides whether something is factually "right" or "wrong." Or however the people who believe in absolute morals believe the "correct" moral code is "decided."
I was just describing the belief that there are no absolute morals.
The structure of this game is more like an MMO than anything else.
Single player mode is not like an MMO.
Do you also complain about how people without internet are ignored for the sake of the MMO crowd?
No, because being offline would defeat the purpose of an MMO.
And for what reason? This DRM that is probably useless to almost everyone? You don't want cheating in multiplayer? Then simply don't allow single player accounts to be used for multiplayer (like games have already done).