it *certainly* constituted insensitive, thoughtless douchebaggery.
That's not certain; that's subjective. I could say that about any type of joke I don't like. I could even say that about your comment, or anyone's comment.
First, that you shouldn't play the game of semantic uncharitability without being absolutely semantically beyond criticism.
Also, that makes no sense. The fact that I have some improving to do does not mean that my observations about you are incorrect.
If you insist on being a pedant, fine, but be authentic in your pedantry, rather than just using it as a tool to poke cheap jabs at other people in a debate.
I don't see them as "cheap jabs"; I simply have no idea what your actual position is unless you make it clear.
No, it's not. It's not legally theft (as far as I know), and calling it that just confuses the matter.
because the money you received should have gone to the copyright holder.
I think the customer who bought the downloaded copy of the book can decide that for themselves, since it was their money and they decided to hand it over to someone selling a book they downloaded.
That doesn't give them any kind of claim to "absoluteness"; something I still don't know what you intend to mean
You're not the only one who doesn't understand absolute morality; I think it's nonsense. But there are people who treat morality as if it's separate from opinion and as if there is some sort of mystical being in the universe who decides right from wrong, and that being's opinions are more 'correct' than ours. I don't know how it works, nor do I really care to.
The rules are independent of what people believe - they are there in the structures discussed in social science, whether people believe them or not.
Independent? But if people were vastly different than they are now (had vastly different beliefs), would these "rules" not change as well?
Basically, this whole diversion should demonstrate two things to you.
Actually, plenty of people believe in absolute morals, I believe. If you do not state your position clearly, how am I to know what you really mean? This is different from merely being pedantic about word choice for no reason, but if that's what you want to do, then go ahead; I believe I could have worded that sentence better.
They can laugh at penis jokes all they want; I don't really care. Besides, you didn't even respond to his argument that staring and/or commenting on women's boobs is not the same as not treating them as human beings.
That's why tech has a sexism problem: most people in tech aren't in a position to understand how sexist behavior excludes (not having lived a life subject to sexism)
That reasoning is rather silly. You try to set it up so no one can possibly argue against it, but it breaks down when you realize that what matters is how logical your opponents' arguments are, not the lives they've lived.
Some people hastily declare anything they don't like (jokes, reactions, people staring at certain places, the use of certain words, etc.) to be sexism, and then they're surprised when people disagree that it's sexism.
Or they'll just be put in free speech zones, or suppressed if they didn't beg the government (protest permits) to protest beforehand (but only if the protestors are numerous).
Saying that "should" is simply subjective is saying that people can do whatever they want.
People could do that anyway as long as it's not impossible for them to do.
Saying that the exceptional case is one where I'm "an omnipotent being who decides blah di blah" and otherwise "simply subjective" means that the only way I can possibly change your mind is if I'm God. QED. Sorry.
I asked if you were an omnipotent beings; nothing more. I did not say that was the only way you could change my mind.
What is "common sense"? What does it matter whether a belief is common? Certain people used to think that lightning was the work of gods, and that was "common sense" at the time, so calling something "common sense" seems rather... meaningless.
Clearly the matter is subjective, because while I don't really find the joke funny, I don't find it offensive in the least, and couldn't care less whether other people found it offensive or not.
Which is irrelevant to me; you phrased it as if it is absolutely wrong. If you intended to say that many people believe it is wrong, then I believe you should have simply said so.
I did not say that I can do "whatever the hell I want." Where did I say that? Where did I even say that, because you're not a God, you can't convince me? I merely asked if you were an omnipotent being capable of deciding what is absolutely and what is absolutely wrong.
Some people (you it appears) fail to recognize that there is a difference between being acceptable (in general) and acceptable in only certain arenas.
I do not fail to realize that, but the issue is still what is and is not acceptable.
Some people think there is nothing wrong with being naked in public. However, I happen to think that just on "health" reasons alone, it should not be acceptable. I do not want to sit in the same seat as the one just used by the "Naked guy".
This is why I feel 'moral' crusaders are problematic; they'll oftentimes try to steal freedom away from everyone else simply because they don't like something.
and I was replying that our society is capable of determining that some behavior is unacceptable for functioning adults (regardless of the subjective nature of social interactions).
Individuals are capable of holding certain opinions. I think what you really mean is that sometimes many people happen to hold the same opinion about something and decide to ostracize anyone who does things that they don't like. Yes, people are capable of that.
Omniscient is all-knowing; omnipotent is all-powerful.
Usually being omnipotent means that you're both. Besides, if you're all-powerful, you'd be capable of making certain things 'wrong' and other things 'right,' so your point seems rather hallow to me.
When you state that something is wrong as a fact, I simply assume that you believe it is objectively wrong; otherwise, why would you do such a thing?
"Oh, ffs, the reason you don't make category-targetted jokes like this isn't because it causes offense (it does, and people are entitled to be offended, but that's neither here nor there), but because it's a pointed act of exclusion."
Humans are more than capable of understanding insanely complex social norms.
They're capable of understanding that there are certain things that some people don't like, but that is not what I was talking about to begin with.
When I said "serious developmental issues", I meant real issues like aspergers that prevent the brain from understanding the complexities of human interaction.
No need to get into pseudopsychology.
If you don't have something legitimately wrong with your brain, or some severe social problems caused possibly by a very poor upbringing, then it is reasonable to expect you to follow social norms even though they are vague.
What is "legitimately wrong," "severe," or "reasonable"? This is what I tried to point out.
There is a reason why we have "social norms", it makes society function. When norms are ignored, it is a sign of dis-functionalism. When people say there are no "norms" it allows for the most egregious acts, under the guise of "tolerance".
Where did I claim that there are no norms? I claimed that morality is subjective; that's all.
This isn't about what is or what isn't appropriate, it is about what is appropriate in certain social arenas, and what is not.
So it's about what is or what isn't appropriate. Got it.
Failing to make that distinction is why our society is doomed.
Believe me, our society will not fall apart because some people ignore certain social norms; I believe many of them are nonsensical to begin with. It seems rather silly to me to say that our society is doomed in this context.
Failing to understand is due to allowing idiots to make the rules.
Failing to agree with me completely is due to allowing idiots to make the rules.
No, he's not omnipotent, he's just speaking from a position of human decency and explaining what, from the point of view of prefering the world not be full of exclusionist assholes, was wrong with what these people did.
Much of that seems rather subjective to me.
Perhaps if you spend more of your life around real people, and less in your basement reading Ayn Rand novels for your homeschooling assignment, you might understand this a little better.
I don't see why I would change my opinion that much of what he said was subjective. Do you have evidence that absolute morals exist? Why did you bring up Ayn Rand?
Slashdot Mirror
it *certainly* constituted insensitive, thoughtless douchebaggery.
That's not certain; that's subjective. I could say that about any type of joke I don't like. I could even say that about your comment, or anyone's comment.
There is nothing certain about that.
I suspect most people don't do such a thing.
Another irrelevancy that completely misses the point; good job.
Neither freedom nor the constitution are negotiable; there is no "balanced system" except one where innocent people aren't spied on.
First, that you shouldn't play the game of semantic uncharitability without being absolutely semantically beyond criticism.
Also, that makes no sense. The fact that I have some improving to do does not mean that my observations about you are incorrect.
If you insist on being a pedant, fine, but be authentic in your pedantry, rather than just using it as a tool to poke cheap jabs at other people in a debate.
I don't see them as "cheap jabs"; I simply have no idea what your actual position is unless you make it clear.
Selling that book you download is theft
No, it's not. It's not legally theft (as far as I know), and calling it that just confuses the matter.
because the money you received should have gone to the copyright holder.
I think the customer who bought the downloaded copy of the book can decide that for themselves, since it was their money and they decided to hand it over to someone selling a book they downloaded.
But no one is stealing anything to begin with.
That doesn't give them any kind of claim to "absoluteness"; something I still don't know what you intend to mean
You're not the only one who doesn't understand absolute morality; I think it's nonsense. But there are people who treat morality as if it's separate from opinion and as if there is some sort of mystical being in the universe who decides right from wrong, and that being's opinions are more 'correct' than ours. I don't know how it works, nor do I really care to.
The rules are independent of what people believe - they are there in the structures discussed in social science, whether people believe them or not.
Independent? But if people were vastly different than they are now (had vastly different beliefs), would these "rules" not change as well?
Basically, this whole diversion should demonstrate two things to you.
Actually, plenty of people believe in absolute morals, I believe. If you do not state your position clearly, how am I to know what you really mean? This is different from merely being pedantic about word choice for no reason, but if that's what you want to do, then go ahead; I believe I could have worded that sentence better.
They can laugh at penis jokes all they want; I don't really care. Besides, you didn't even respond to his argument that staring and/or commenting on women's boobs is not the same as not treating them as human beings.
That's why tech has a sexism problem: most people in tech aren't in a position to understand how sexist behavior excludes (not having lived a life subject to sexism)
That reasoning is rather silly. You try to set it up so no one can possibly argue against it, but it breaks down when you realize that what matters is how logical your opponents' arguments are, not the lives they've lived.
Some people hastily declare anything they don't like (jokes, reactions, people staring at certain places, the use of certain words, etc.) to be sexism, and then they're surprised when people disagree that it's sexism.
Or they'll just be put in free speech zones, or suppressed if they didn't beg the government (protest permits) to protest beforehand (but only if the protestors are numerous).
Saying that "should" is simply subjective is saying that people can do whatever they want.
People could do that anyway as long as it's not impossible for them to do.
Saying that the exceptional case is one where I'm "an omnipotent being who decides blah di blah" and otherwise "simply subjective" means that the only way I can possibly change your mind is if I'm God. QED. Sorry.
I asked if you were an omnipotent beings; nothing more. I did not say that was the only way you could change my mind.
What is "common sense"? What does it matter whether a belief is common? Certain people used to think that lightning was the work of gods, and that was "common sense" at the time, so calling something "common sense" seems rather... meaningless.
Clearly the matter is subjective, because while I don't really find the joke funny, I don't find it offensive in the least, and couldn't care less whether other people found it offensive or not.
It's a fact of our particular social situation
Which is irrelevant to me; you phrased it as if it is absolutely wrong. If you intended to say that many people believe it is wrong, then I believe you should have simply said so.
I did not say that I can do "whatever the hell I want." Where did I say that? Where did I even say that, because you're not a God, you can't convince me? I merely asked if you were an omnipotent being capable of deciding what is absolutely and what is absolutely wrong.
Some people (you it appears) fail to recognize that there is a difference between being acceptable (in general) and acceptable in only certain arenas.
I do not fail to realize that, but the issue is still what is and is not acceptable.
Some people think there is nothing wrong with being naked in public. However, I happen to think that just on "health" reasons alone, it should not be acceptable. I do not want to sit in the same seat as the one just used by the "Naked guy".
This is why I feel 'moral' crusaders are problematic; they'll oftentimes try to steal freedom away from everyone else simply because they don't like something.
and I was replying that our society is capable of determining that some behavior is unacceptable for functioning adults (regardless of the subjective nature of social interactions).
Individuals are capable of holding certain opinions. I think what you really mean is that sometimes many people happen to hold the same opinion about something and decide to ostracize anyone who does things that they don't like. Yes, people are capable of that.
At one point, I was nine years old, and seeing such a thing would not harm someone that age in all likelihood.
Omniscient is all-knowing; omnipotent is all-powerful.
Usually being omnipotent means that you're both. Besides, if you're all-powerful, you'd be capable of making certain things 'wrong' and other things 'right,' so your point seems rather hallow to me.
Who said anything about "Absolute" morals?
When you state that something is wrong as a fact, I simply assume that you believe it is objectively wrong; otherwise, why would you do such a thing?
"Oh, ffs, the reason you don't make category-targetted jokes like this isn't because it causes offense (it does, and people are entitled to be offended, but that's neither here nor there), but because it's a pointed act of exclusion."
Humans are more than capable of understanding insanely complex social norms.
They're capable of understanding that there are certain things that some people don't like, but that is not what I was talking about to begin with.
When I said "serious developmental issues", I meant real issues like aspergers that prevent the brain from understanding the complexities of human interaction.
No need to get into pseudopsychology.
If you don't have something legitimately wrong with your brain, or some severe social problems caused possibly by a very poor upbringing, then it is reasonable to expect you to follow social norms even though they are vague.
What is "legitimately wrong," "severe," or "reasonable"? This is what I tried to point out.
So basically "You're not God, you can't convince me, therefore I can do whatever the hell I want".
That's not what I said, but if believing that's what I said makes you feel better, then fine.
Not all ethical realism is religious.
It might not be, but it all seems rather magical to me.
You'd be wrong at least some of the time, and you shouldn't do the wrong thing, but you can still do it.
I don't believe in absolute morals.
There is a reason why we have "social norms", it makes society function. When norms are ignored, it is a sign of dis-functionalism. When people say there are no "norms" it allows for the most egregious acts, under the guise of "tolerance".
Where did I claim that there are no norms? I claimed that morality is subjective; that's all.
This isn't about what is or what isn't appropriate, it is about what is appropriate in certain social arenas, and what is not.
So it's about what is or what isn't appropriate. Got it.
Failing to make that distinction is why our society is doomed.
Believe me, our society will not fall apart because some people ignore certain social norms; I believe many of them are nonsensical to begin with. It seems rather silly to me to say that our society is doomed in this context.
Failing to understand is due to allowing idiots to make the rules.
Failing to agree with me completely is due to allowing idiots to make the rules.
No, he's not omnipotent, he's just speaking from a position of human decency and explaining what, from the point of view of prefering the world not be full of exclusionist assholes, was wrong with what these people did.
Much of that seems rather subjective to me.
Perhaps if you spend more of your life around real people, and less in your basement reading Ayn Rand novels for your homeschooling assignment, you might understand this a little better.
I don't see why I would change my opinion that much of what he said was subjective. Do you have evidence that absolute morals exist? Why did you bring up Ayn Rand?