Evidence? 8 million innocents butchered in the name of that ideology, plus tens of millions more (many of them civilians as well) killed in the struggle to defeat it.
That sounds like more of an appeal to emotion than anything else. How is that factually "wrong"? How do you know? Who decided that it is? While I personally think that it is, that doesn't mean that it is universally "wrong."
Moral relativism is founded on contradictory ideas.
I'm pretty sure it's founded on the ideas that morals are little more than opinions.
Everyone in the world knows what the word "good" means - even if they argue about what qualifies as good.
I don't know what it means until the person I'm asking explains what they think it means.
Some people are wrong, some theories are wrong.
How do you know that? How can you tell which ones are "wrong"?
The mere fact that we can argue about what actions are good and what actions are evil is proof that we agree about the definitions of good and evil
I really don't know what you mean. What does "good" mean? What does "evil" mean? Why are some people who claim that certain people are or aren't evil "wrong" while others aren't? How so? Too many unexplained things.
There is no possible situation in which it would be good for a child to become a neo-nazi, any more than to become a serial killer or paedophile rapist.
That would depend on who you ask. I'm sure most would find it to be bad, though.
Where did I say that? Not believing in absolute morals doesn't mean that you don't believe in morals at all. It just means that everyone has their own moral code, and none of them are inherently wrong. It also doesn't mean that you can't try to stop people who you deem as doing wrong.
I didn't say that you couldn't try to stop it if you believe that it is wrong. I just meant that there is absolutely no evidence (that I know of) for absolute morals, so I don't think that their existence should be stated as a fact.
Those are emotions that can be (supposedly) felt by people. That's really all the "evidence" that there is. I'll choose to believe in them, though, because I have no reason not to.
However, when someone expects me to believe that there is a certain set of morals (which seem to be no different than opinions) that are correct (because the magical moral fairy said so), and they have no evidence to prove it, I will question them (just like if someone claimed that god exists).
6. To understand that half of the information for any exchange, (which is necessary for logic to work better by combining #3 and #4), is their subjective view-point and experience which requires the ability by definition to empathize.
Are you saying that in order to understand someone's point of view, you need to empathize with them? I don't think that's true. You can understand how they came to their conclusion without actually empathizing with them, as far as I know.
The fact that no one has ever tried to prove it to you does not mean they can't.
I didn't say otherwise. But I don't believe that someone can.
and it simply makes sense to turn over the organization and direction of our species to that thought process.
I guess I just expect some degree of evidence before I'm willing to accept some things. And what "real world"? I'm fairly confident that moral relativism exists (I really don't understand what you meant by that comment).
but is there some problem with viewing changing kids' lives from neo-nazism as a good thing?
That would depend on who you ask. If you're asking me, then I'd say no.
- An irrelevant philosophical point that boils down to how morality cannot be derived from provable facts?
Well, there's no evidence of absolute morals (that I know of). It appeared as though he stated something subjective (or, at least, I believe it to be subjective) as a fact, so I replied to it.
Certain people who, for some reason, care about the future. They're not necessarily wrong to care, either. Just like you're not necessarily wrong to not care.
Precisely. If the government stripped away most of your rights, but you retained your Blackberry for some reason, you're clearly not oppressed. What determines if you're being oppressed is whether or not you have a Blackberry.
The real tragedy for these kids is that they've somehow been raised to not know that setting fire to buildings where there are flats with people sleeping in above them might be like, a really bad thing to do, and that stealing just for the sake of stealing is also really bad
"Bad" is, in my opinion, subjective. Perhaps they just have a different definition of it than you.
I suppose the real question (whose answer varies depending on who you ask), then, is whether limiting these things for everyone is worth it just because a few people might 'abuse' them.
about which you have absolutely no idea beyond the biased opinions of "your rights online" posts here, and the odd cliche from the 60s.
Can you prove that?
it's intellectually lazy teenagers like you
What made you come to the conclusion that they are a teenager (or that they are locked up in their parents' basement, for that matter)? Or are those just random assumptions?
Slashdot Mirror
Evidence? 8 million innocents butchered in the name of that ideology, plus tens of millions more (many of them civilians as well) killed in the struggle to defeat it.
That sounds like more of an appeal to emotion than anything else. How is that factually "wrong"? How do you know? Who decided that it is? While I personally think that it is, that doesn't mean that it is universally "wrong."
Moral relativism is founded on contradictory ideas.
I'm pretty sure it's founded on the ideas that morals are little more than opinions.
Everyone in the world knows what the word "good" means - even if they argue about what qualifies as good.
I don't know what it means until the person I'm asking explains what they think it means.
Some people are wrong, some theories are wrong.
How do you know that? How can you tell which ones are "wrong"?
The mere fact that we can argue about what actions are good and what actions are evil is proof that we agree about the definitions of good and evil
I really don't know what you mean. What does "good" mean? What does "evil" mean? Why are some people who claim that certain people are or aren't evil "wrong" while others aren't? How so? Too many unexplained things.
There is no possible situation in which it would be good for a child to become a neo-nazi, any more than to become a serial killer or paedophile rapist.
That would depend on who you ask. I'm sure most would find it to be bad, though.
Where did I say that? Not believing in absolute morals doesn't mean that you don't believe in morals at all. It just means that everyone has their own moral code, and none of them are inherently wrong. It also doesn't mean that you can't try to stop people who you deem as doing wrong.
I didn't say that you couldn't try to stop it if you believe that it is wrong. I just meant that there is absolutely no evidence (that I know of) for absolute morals, so I don't think that their existence should be stated as a fact.
How is it not obvious that fascism/neo-Nazism is wrong?
Because that's just an opinion (or so I believe).
Those are emotions that can be (supposedly) felt by people. That's really all the "evidence" that there is. I'll choose to believe in them, though, because I have no reason not to.
However, when someone expects me to believe that there is a certain set of morals (which seem to be no different than opinions) that are correct (because the magical moral fairy said so), and they have no evidence to prove it, I will question them (just like if someone claimed that god exists).
6. To understand that half of the information for any exchange, (which is necessary for logic to work better by combining #3 and #4), is their subjective view-point and experience which requires the ability by definition to empathize.
Are you saying that in order to understand someone's point of view, you need to empathize with them? I don't think that's true. You can understand how they came to their conclusion without actually empathizing with them, as far as I know.
The fact that no one has ever tried to prove it to you does not mean they can't.
I didn't say otherwise. But I don't believe that someone can.
and it simply makes sense to turn over the organization and direction of our species to that thought process.
Wouldn't that depend on who you ask?
I'll waste time arguing with Nazis and proving them wrong
I don't think I said anything about trying to prove Nazis wrong.
I guess I just expect some degree of evidence before I'm willing to accept some things. And what "real world"? I'm fairly confident that moral relativism exists (I really don't understand what you meant by that comment).
Trying to argue otherwise makes you look silly.
To some people, perhaps.
but is there some problem with viewing changing kids' lives from neo-nazism as a good thing?
That would depend on who you ask. If you're asking me, then I'd say no.
- An irrelevant philosophical point that boils down to how morality cannot be derived from provable facts?
Well, there's no evidence of absolute morals (that I know of). It appeared as though he stated something subjective (or, at least, I believe it to be subjective) as a fact, so I replied to it.
Becoming a neo-nazi is considered a negative thing by everyone
That doesn't mean that it is negative.
Really, there are some things in life that are unambiguously, morally good.
To know that, you'd probably have to be able to prove the existence of absolute morals.
Actually, since they're probably children
How do you know this?
If it causes at least one parent to positively change a kids direction in life, then it was well worth the money spent.
What does "positively" mean? Changing the direction of their life in a way that you or their parents like?
WHO GIVES A FUCK?
Certain people who, for some reason, care about the future. They're not necessarily wrong to care, either. Just like you're not necessarily wrong to not care.
He doesn't need a crystal ball. All he needs to do is say what is going to happen and it will surely happen. You know this is true because he said so.
and they don't just open fire because you looked at them funny.
There's simply no such thing as human error or corrupt policeman.
suggests the police considered him to be very dangerous.
Therefore, he was.
Precisely. If the government stripped away most of your rights, but you retained your Blackberry for some reason, you're clearly not oppressed. What determines if you're being oppressed is whether or not you have a Blackberry.
But who are you to tell the rest of us what we should and shouldn't do?
That happens all the time. In fact, it'd be difficult to make a law that didn't do this.
Frankly, I think you're paranoid.
If countermeasures only take a few moments to set up, then why not do it (provided you have the desire to in the first place)?
You think that people care about tracking you, personally.
I don't think anyone said that.
No, 15 year olds know right and wrong.
That would depend on the 15 year old, and it would depend on your definitions of "right" and "wrong."
That's no justification to smash the shops and cars of people mostly unrelated to the issues you cited.
Whether it's a good justification for what they did or not is probably subjective.
Don't try to say that there is a reason for this.
I'm pretty sure that there is a reason. Whether that be people wanting to have fun or something else, all of those are reasons.
The real tragedy for these kids is that they've somehow been raised to not know that setting fire to buildings where there are flats with people sleeping in above them might be like, a really bad thing to do, and that stealing just for the sake of stealing is also really bad
"Bad" is, in my opinion, subjective. Perhaps they just have a different definition of it than you.
And unless someone obtains some actual evidence that this is the case, this will probably just remain as mere speculation.
I suppose the real question (whose answer varies depending on who you ask), then, is whether limiting these things for everyone is worth it just because a few people might 'abuse' them.
about which you have absolutely no idea beyond the biased opinions of "your rights online" posts here, and the odd cliche from the 60s.
Can you prove that?
it's intellectually lazy teenagers like you
What made you come to the conclusion that they are a teenager (or that they are locked up in their parents' basement, for that matter)? Or are those just random assumptions?