In other news, SCO is planning on bringing suit with God next. "This God person," SCO CEO Darl McBride is quoted as saying, "has used stolen SCO code repleatedly in the design of Creation."
A spokesman for God appeared today to give God's answer to SCO. Speaking for God was one M0s3s, who said unto Darl "Let my OS go!", he then smote SCO with plagues of boils , frogs, locusts, and burning hail.
The "natural law" argument falls flat on its face: Nobody argues about the law of gravity, because such a thing can be objectively tested. I've yet to see an objective test for "evil", however -- perhaps a heat sensor combined with measurement of ambient sulfur levels?
So basicly you're saying that there are no consequences to our actions? The natural law argument derives from the biological nature of human beings, violate that nature and you will reap cosequences. Now if you've bought into the idea that human nature is infinitly malleable then, well, I have to say that I stongly disagree with your axioms. That being the case we have to discuss basic terms of discussion. Such as the word "is".
BTW a great objective test for the presence of evil- Dead Human Bodies.
Now, let's try looking at this from another perspective. A few questions (and yes, they're a bit leading):
Do you believe that you are competant to determine which actions are within your best interests?
Presuming that you do believe yourself competant, then, does it not follow that you -- not everyone, just you -- will not be subject to damages additional to those which presently befall you if the only harms done you by yourself or others are those harms which you have considered and decided are in your best interests to accept as risks?
If you yourself are competant, and you are capable of determining an appropriate course of action for yourself under the the above limitations, is it not the worst sort of egotism to determine that others are not so competant to determine an appropriate course for themselves as you are for your own self?
No, I may be a fool. Therefore I must be careful. Neither are you unless you have acess to all relavent information and know when you have it all. Since some of the information I need to make a good decision will not exist until after the fact, at best I can only act in my percieved best interests.
No, I have and will be harmed by the unintended consequences of others actions. Unless you believe that my car getting trashed by a drunk while I was asleep in my bed is somehow my fault? The drunk had to mow down a fence and an apple tree to get to my car BTW.
You presume that no one is a fool. Incidently, fools do not believe they are fools. Lastly, many times a fool in his own cause can be wise in anothers cause. We should look out for each other.
I have a quick question for you. Please don't take this the wrong way, but since your questions amounted to the same thing I thought I would ask yo directly.
If I had to come up with one reason I prefer my moral stance, you've made it abundantly clear: By my definition of evil, evil is something one can succesfully avoid. You may go and argue why evil things are unavoidable -- and engage in such actions while knowing them to be evil. Evil, by my definition, is something which can be avoided in full -- and when I don't avoid it, I have no excuse that it's "no more avoidable than breathing".
A less restrictive definition of "evil", thus, can result in an overall reduction in harmful behaviour in the same manner by which laws which the average man can realistically follow are better respected when unaccompanied by laws which he will not.
That's sophistry. That's not addressing the problem, that's simply agreeing to ignore the problem. This is not a problem of legislation, this is more akin to natural law, like F = (m*a + V*dm/dt)! You may feel better about yourself but you have not actually addressed the issue at hand. Which can lead to VERY BAD THINGS!
The responsibility of every human being is to realize what they do and act to mitigate it and to try to do some positive good.
"without knowing consent" means that the same act can be evil or not depending on the assent of the target. I'm saying that anything that leads to the destruction of a human being is in and of itself evil. I did not say the mitigating circumstances make doing an evil thing right. I am saying that regardless of circumstances the act is evil. War is evil; does that mean it's unnecessary, no; does that make it less evil, also no. We human beings can no more avoid doing evil than we can avoid breathing. But we can try.
BTW - I think that the Enlightenment idea that evil requires consent is hysterical, or it would be if so many people didn't buy into it.
What part of "harm without knowing consent" is relative? I'd call that a pretty damn black-and-white line... it's just a line that's different than the one you draw.
"without knowing consent."
why isn't imprisoning someone judged guilty of a crime *evil*?
What makes you think it isn't? It may be necessary, prudent, and the only possible way to prevent more evil from being commited, but what makes you think that imprisoning a human being is, in any way, shape, or form, anything but an evil act?
Finally, I think our definitions of evil differ quite substantially. "Evil" involves activities which materially harm an individual who has not granted knowing consent. Nothing inherent about porn or prostitution prevents "knowing consent" -- so in the instances where knowing consent is not given, it's the specific circumestances or individuals who perpretrated this, rather than the thing itself, that is evil.
You're correct, our definitions of evil do differ substantially. My definition of evil is considerably older than your 20th century moral relativism.
Evil is the destruction of a human being.
So from this it logicaly follows that the following are evils:
(In no particular order and by no means a comlete list)
But a teenager IS a child. A child with 5 more years of legal childhood and 8 more years of actual childhood still ahead of them. A child that is about to enter the most difficult years of his life. Why do you wish to add to his burdens?
A 13 year old is not a child. A 13 year old is a few precious years away from becoming an adult. Maybe if we developed in children a sense of personal responsibility at an earlier age, we wouldn't have all the problems we do know (smoking, drugs, sex) among people in their early teens.
I'm sorry, let me see if I understood you correctly, a 13 year old is not a child. Also a 13 year old is not an adult. That would make him a fish?
Your points are reasonable. Most of the people I met were isolated from their families and had no local support network, in fact one escaped from the situation just because of the mild encouragement she recieved from us (we thought something terrible had happened to her, we found out differently years later).
I do agree that your circle of freinds is probably atypical. i hope you're right about their prospects.
Last I knew, professional prostitutes (the legalized, licensed, Nevada kind) had a *much* lower STD rate than any other population segment -- given that in order to be licensed for their profession they require knowledge on best practices for avoiding contracting STDs and identifying those posessing them, are obliged submit to biweekly blood tests, etc. I'd expect that those involved in (professional) porn would have a similarly low rate, given the similar need for their employers to require regular testing pre-employment.
Finally, remember, we're discussing porn. Not prostitution, not sex clubs, not "alternative lifestyles", porn. I haven't heard of anyone getting an STD from a magazine yet.
I think you have the answer implicit in your own statement. As soon as they test positive for an STD they are no longer working, biweekly tests remember?
Alternative lifestyles, prostitution, sex clubs, etc. are the flip side of porn. That is what is being marketed by porn. A lot of the porn out there is simply advertising by strippers. A lot of strippers supplement their income by prostitution.
Human beings are integrated systems. If you change one thing you usually end up changing a whole bunch of other things unintenionally. In the pharmaceutical field these are known as side effects (side effects can include...). In sexuality this tends to produce a coarsening of the sensibilities. Porn is evil because it abuses a central part of our makeup. We build our whole existance around sexuality and it's consequences (marriage, family). Porn is a distorted image of that, and people who build their lives around porn (strippers, prostitutes, pornographers, etc.) ultimatly are destroying themselves and the people around them. It's similar to drug abuse in it's destructive effects.
I'm not speaking theoreticly here, I've watched as people I knew destroyed themselves this way.
Child: I did that because you have not right to censor might liberties. And if you were a parent worth a damn, you would have build a case that was compelling enough that i might have agreed with your censorship.
Mom (dangerously): You broke my dishwasher for a philosophical point?
One could even go as far as to argue that if it's the "degredation" meme that causes pornography to be harmful, then it's those (such as yourself) who perpetuate that meme who are responsible for the relevant harm.
No it's the "That skank has all the diseases" meme/reality that causes all the harm. The "Degradation" meme is a disease defence. BTW Hepatitus C and AIDS are still incurable. Aren't alternative lifestyles lethally fun?
LIVE spelled backwards is EVIL. Death is a BAD thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't Alexander Graham Bell take out this patent in 1836? Seems to me the patent has somewhat expired.
You can sue for misapropriated income, then sue for triple damages under the RICO laws.
I like Connecticut. Greece is nice too, but the Greeks are kind of pissed at the US right now.
A spokesman for God appeared today to give God's answer to SCO. Speaking for God was one M0s3s, who said unto Darl "Let my OS go!", he then smote SCO with plagues of boils , frogs, locusts, and burning hail.
SCO has not yet responded.
Mach 6.
Sorry man. If it makes you feel better my first name is Dino.
Quibbler. I meant dry mass.
Ebola converts about 40% of your body mass to virus. IT REALLY FREAKS ME OUT!!!!
So basicly you're saying that there are no consequences to our actions? The natural law argument derives from the biological nature of human beings, violate that nature and you will reap cosequences. Now if you've bought into the idea that human nature is infinitly malleable then, well, I have to say that I stongly disagree with your axioms. That being the case we have to discuss basic terms of discussion. Such as the word "is".
BTW a great objective test for the presence of evil- Dead Human Bodies.
Now, let's try looking at this from another perspective. A few questions (and yes, they're a bit leading):
I have a quick question for you. Please don't take this the wrong way, but since your questions amounted to the same thing I thought I would ask yo directly.
Are you a fool?
Don't quibble. In some places 10 year olds are leading battles.
A less restrictive definition of "evil", thus, can result in an overall reduction in harmful behaviour in the same manner by which laws which the average man can realistically follow are better respected when unaccompanied by laws which he will not.
That's sophistry. That's not addressing the problem, that's simply agreeing to ignore the problem. This is not a problem of legislation, this is more akin to natural law, like F = (m*a + V*dm/dt)! You may feel better about yourself but you have not actually addressed the issue at hand. Which can lead to VERY BAD THINGS!
The responsibility of every human being is to realize what they do and act to mitigate it and to try to do some positive good.
BTW - I think that the Enlightenment idea that evil requires consent is hysterical, or it would be if so many people didn't buy into it.
"without knowing consent."
why isn't imprisoning someone judged guilty of a crime *evil*?
What makes you think it isn't? It may be necessary, prudent, and the only possible way to prevent more evil from being commited, but what makes you think that imprisoning a human being is, in any way, shape, or form, anything but an evil act?
You're correct, our definitions of evil do differ substantially. My definition of evil is considerably older than your 20th century moral relativism.
Evil is the destruction of a human being.
So from this it logicaly follows that the following are evils: (In no particular order and by no means a comlete list)
DEATH, debility, sickness, poison, violence, WAR, cruelty, hatred, jealosy, envy, terrorism, bald tires, arson, stealing, selfishness, malnutrition, porn, murder, gluttony, averice, gossip, insanity ...
I've built better.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
You: You're an Idiot!
Me: No, You Are!
You: No, You Are!
Me: No, You Are!
You: No, You Are!
Me: No, You Are!
You: No, You Are!
Me: No, You Are!
You: No, You Are!
Ad Nauseum.
That is his parent's job. Neither you nor I can do it for them, nor should we.
But a teenager IS a child. A child with 5 more years of legal childhood and 8 more years of actual childhood still ahead of them. A child that is about to enter the most difficult years of his life. Why do you wish to add to his burdens?
Good. Let's not chip away at his foundation until it has a chance to set, shall we?
I'm sorry, let me see if I understood you correctly, a 13 year old is not a child. Also a 13 year old is not an adult. That would make him a fish?
I do agree that your circle of freinds is probably atypical. i hope you're right about their prospects.
Finally, remember, we're discussing porn. Not prostitution, not sex clubs, not "alternative lifestyles", porn. I haven't heard of anyone getting an STD from a magazine yet.
I think you have the answer implicit in your own statement. As soon as they test positive for an STD they are no longer working, biweekly tests remember?
Alternative lifestyles, prostitution, sex clubs, etc. are the flip side of porn. That is what is being marketed by porn. A lot of the porn out there is simply advertising by strippers. A lot of strippers supplement their income by prostitution.
Human beings are integrated systems. If you change one thing you usually end up changing a whole bunch of other things unintenionally. In the pharmaceutical field these are known as side effects (side effects can include...). In sexuality this tends to produce a coarsening of the sensibilities. Porn is evil because it abuses a central part of our makeup. We build our whole existance around sexuality and it's consequences (marriage, family). Porn is a distorted image of that, and people who build their lives around porn (strippers, prostitutes, pornographers, etc.) ultimatly are destroying themselves and the people around them. It's similar to drug abuse in it's destructive effects.
I'm not speaking theoreticly here, I've watched as people I knew destroyed themselves this way.
Child: I did that because you have not right to censor might liberties. And if you were a parent worth a damn, you would have build a case that was compelling enough that i might have agreed with your censorship.
Mom (dangerously): You broke my dishwasher for a philosophical point?
Child (terror): NO MOMMY NOOOOO!
This is called education.
No it's the "That skank has all the diseases" meme/reality that causes all the harm. The "Degradation" meme is a disease defence. BTW Hepatitus C and AIDS are still incurable. Aren't alternative lifestyles lethally fun?
LIVE spelled backwards is EVIL. Death is a BAD thing.