1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: August 20, 2007, 08:18:10 PM »

He failed though, and then disappeared. It was bad form.

I'm okay with this nonsense as long as you follow your own advice and be clear about the fact that this is your opinion of the way the debate turned out.

I didn't disappear.  Upon realizing that you're not debating according to objective reason but according to results you had latched onto before the fact, I lost all motivation to continue the process.  You have only cemented this realization by taking the impetus for this discussion onto yourself and relegating my comments to the category of "failed attempt to refute", which is a gross mischaracterization.

I left because I'm confident that my arguments are stronger than yours, and that no further amendments can be made to the discussion.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Einstein and Flat Earth theory

« on: August 20, 2007, 07:56:20 PM »

what if the Earth wasn't moving, but was stationary in the center?

Indeed, the conclusion reached by the experimenters is that, "If the aether exists, then the Earth is stationary to it within one part in such-and-such."  Galilean relativity had been accepted long ago, so no physicist worth his salt would say "stationary [in the absolute sense]," but only, "[relative to such-and-such other object]".  The "[]" mean: maybe it's implicit what it's relative to.

However, geocentrism was disproved by Galileo when he observed that Venus had a full complement of phases and is sometimes closer than, and sometimes farther than, the sun.  This is not possible if Venus revolves around the Earth, rather than the sun, but is perfectly predicted by the heliocentric model.  Therefore we are left to conclude that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Given this, and since the Michelson-Morley experiment equivalently requires that the sun is stationary with respect to the aether, we are forced to conclude that there is no aether.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: lolproof

« on: August 20, 2007, 07:44:12 PM »

The lakes are located on a flat planar section of the curved-earth-disc, os how is this proof of a flat earth?

It's not.  It's a refutation of the argument that you can tell the Earth is round by looking at the horizon, since the horizon appears curved.  As per picture attached below, the horizon does not appear curved.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Einstein and Flat Earth theory

« on: July 29, 2007, 03:32:03 PM »

I do not have to prove aether exists because it is irrelevant to Michelson and Morley's experiment which was to determine the speed of the Earth, and the result was zero reguardless of a non-existent substance which the Earth was falsely said to travel through.

Perhaps, then, you can explain how Michelson and Morley's experiment proved the Earth to be stationary.  My understanding of this experiment is that it relies on the notion of the aether, and Earth's movement with respect to that substance.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: July 23, 2007, 07:45:53 AM »

divito, you might want to give a shot at answering the question that was asked.  Just a thought.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: July 15, 2007, 09:47:23 AM »

Yes, people can be wrong about things. In your example though, it's less so because you're using words of objects that are of consensus.

However, truth is not defined by consensus.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Okay. I want pictures of this ice wall.

« on: July 08, 2007, 10:29:45 AM »

I see a logical problem with this.  To put it simply, even if your premises are accepted you have not deductivly proven your conclusion.

...

Conclusion 1: Therefore, we can conclude that "the Government" is honestly just misinformed.

The person you quoted was giving a briefer version of an argument repeated so many times as to be no longer interesting.  He left out some details that close the logical gap you are pointing out:

Not only does the government claim the Earth is round, but also do they claim that they have irrefutable evidence of this fact, and the means to acquire such evidence.  If the Earth is indeed flat, one of those claims must be a lie.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: July 03, 2007, 12:42:03 AM »

It's the same reason bills and legislation can be passed to change laws and such. Majority rules unfortunately.

I really don't see why you'd be satisfied with a decision mechanism that you consider unfortunate.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: July 02, 2007, 03:37:57 PM »

But the God of the old Testament decided the moral laws and they were all conditional on wether or not you were god.

Where does it say that?

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: July 02, 2007, 10:28:54 AM »

These morals may or not be absolutly universal, being obeyed by the higher powers in question (eg: Obey God(s)). Moral values in religions generally are obeyed all the way to the top,

I'm concerned that, if my interpretation of what you say is correct, you believe that the "higher powers" obey moral laws.  They do not.  This is most evidently the case in the unambiguously evil God of the Old Testament.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 24, 2007, 08:36:22 PM »

I can't refute factual and well formed statements.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 24, 2007, 07:33:07 PM »

I wasn't aware that there was an incorrect way to dissect your posts. By breaking down each part of your post that comes into question, it's easier to refute your argument,

That's just it.  You haven't broken down each part; only those that you felt you could easily attack once taken out of context.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 24, 2007, 05:41:09 PM »

"Value is a concept that describes the beliefs of an individual or culture. ..."

Subjective.

I have been quite clear as to what I mean by "values": they are objective in the sense I use the word.

No, I haven't falsified or misrepresented anything you've said.

You have, in that you've implied that my argument concerns claims that can be or must be demonstrated scientifically.

Instead of (incorrectly) picking apart the sentences that introduce my paragraphs, why not just directly address the issue I'm bringing up?  You can't demand scientific evidence that morality is objective; science doesn't address such questions.  You admit this later in your post; making a demand for evidence that you agree cannot possibly exist is a bad-faith argument tactic.

Your posts increasingly sidestep the issues and arguments and attempt to distract the discussion with barely-meaningful sentences.  It's pretty irritating.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 24, 2007, 04:52:58 PM »

Morality is:

- "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct."
- "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct"

My whole participation in this thread was to bring to light, that morals are subjective and not based on physical, objective evidence. Unless there has been some scientific discovery that proves otherwise, I'm not sure why you disagree. I guess my ideas do belong somewhere else since I was unsuccessful in showing that to you. Oh well.

I know it was a long time ago that I posted this, so I'll repost it:

Morality can come from the nature of the agent in question, as it relates to the nature of the object of his actions.  Humans have a nature which places certain demands for survival on them.  The prerequisites of survival, being a prerequisite of all other goals besides self-destruction, are prerequisites of all other goals.  Things that help an individual to achieve his goals are valuable to him; since the prerequisites of a person's non-self-destructive goals are objectively defined, we have an objective theory of value, i.e., an objective morality (a morality being a theory of value).

Virtues are the abilities man has at his disposal to acquire things of value.  Morality is acting in a virtuous fashion; application of virtue (as defined above) is right.  Value is objective, so virtue is objective, so morality is objective.  Done and done.

Demanding "scientific evidence" that morality is objective is a straw man; it's as ridiculous as demanding scientific evidence that there are infinitely many primes.  One doesn't go into a lab to measure the objectivity of morality any more than he goes into the jungle seeking prime numbers and counting them.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 24, 2007, 04:07:01 PM »

No, the action of declaring that murder is wrong is a fact, however there were no facts contained in that statement other than the words.

More meaningless stuff.  Actions are not facts; neither are words.

[Getting from opinion to action is] a matter of brain processes. ... [People justify their actions] with words. ... Yes, everyone does [simply act in accordance with his personal whims].

Yeah, you're really not talking about morality at all.  It's clear you don't actually understand what I'm asking you (or your intention is to communicate badly).  I think your ideas belong in a different thread.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 24, 2007, 03:14:52 PM »

Really? When trying to make decisions, I use my mind, fact.

Ah, you're equivocating now.  It is a fact that you are using your mind, that's true.  But that doesn't mean you're using facts, since your mind is not a fact any more than an apple or a person or a baseball game is a fact.  I know it's a subtle, semantic distinction, but it's an important one.

Using the same logic, I could say that in declaring murder to be wrong, I am "using facts", since it's obviously the case that it is a fact that I'm making a declaration, and it's a fact that I'm stating what's on my mind, and it's a fact that I'm wearing an orange shirt.  Those facts, however, are not the facts that I'm using as evidence for my declaration.

"Principles" in the way you're desiring an answer is opinionated. There is no factual rule for how people should act.

Absolutely, but there are facts that dictate how people should act if they have certain goals, e.g., if people want to survive then they need to consume water.  I've already been over this, so I won't go into it again.

I am choosing to hopefully get people to simply speak in accordance with their opinions and facts.

If someone murdered someone else, stick to facts and expressing your opinion appropriately.

"He was murdered, I think that is awful for that person and their family" - There is nothing in this statement that can be factually contested. The person stated a fact (someone was murdered), and their opinion on that action and its consequences.

Fine, but how do you get from opinion to action?  How do you justify your actions?  Do you simply act in accordance with your personal whims?  It's questions like this that you have to answer if you actually want to talk about morality.  Otherwise, you're discussing a totally different area of philosophy -- namely, epistemology.  You need to say "people should X" to be talking about morality, and probably X should describe a principle according to which people can make decisions and act.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 24, 2007, 02:14:50 PM »

So, divito, what I'm getting from you is basically the suggestion that morality as such should simply be abolished.  In other words, we should not have debates on whether a given action is actually right or wrong (as evidenced by your suggestion regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and that rather the focus should be on reminding people that everybody is entitled to his or her opinion, and that nobody's opinion on any matter whatsoever is more valid than anybody else's.  If it were anybody else, I would probably ask why you think that's a good idea.

However, I'm ready to resign this debate with you since it's become pretty clear that you're not philosophically sophisticated enough to see the flaws in your argument, even when they're pointed out to you.  For example, I accused you of begging the question, and your response was that you hadn't seen any evidence contrary to your position.  This indicates to me that you either don't understand what begging the question is, or don't agree that it's a fallacy and renders an argument that depends on it totally impotent.

When I asked you for the principle that guides adherents to your idea, you responded that they are guided by evidence and facts, which is not a meaningful answer.  When trying to make decisions, one cannot be guided solely by facts -- that's nonsensical, since facts are "is" statements.  They can only be guided by principles, which are "should" statements, and which demand we take certain actions in the context of certain facts.

While I think that so far most of what you said doesn't actually mean anything, I have gotten the notion that you think that people ought to say exactly what they mean at all times.  This would mean that people ought not say, "I am eating ice cream," but rather, "I feel as though I am eating ice cream"; that they ought not say, "To torture is man's right," but rather, "I believe that to torture is man's right"; that they ought not say, "The sky is blue," but rather, "It's my opinion that the sky is blue."

Okay, I guess there's something to that.  However, just like an opinion or belief about the color of the sky and whether or not you are eating ice cream can be wrong or right, I believe that an opinion or belief about morality can be wrong or right.  I have argued for this belief with the goal of encouraging others to believe it as well; if you really stand by your "everybody has a right to his opinion" nonsense, then feel free to stop responding, since you're accomplishing nothing that you think ought to be accomplished.  If, on the other hand, you insist on publicly declaring my beliefs to be wrong, first admit that doing so is contradictory to your own beliefs, and second, please actually address my argument itself, rather than repeatedly restating your original premise.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 23, 2007, 05:53:16 PM »

Subjective is everything.  The entire human race believes the above (that water, air, and shelter are needed by humans to stay alive), and it is the opinion of the human race.

Wow, okay.  Well, if that's how you feel, you're free to opine something else and see how it works out for you.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 20, 2007, 08:34:55 AM »

Erasmus, beast: ...  await your rebuttal(s).

Mine's already there; see below.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity

« on: June 18, 2007, 09:26:51 PM »

That's quite right. I guess science is silly that way. After we check millions upon millions of cases and find consistently the same values for G, we just go off and make the assumption. We continue to search high and low for the cause of gravity.

You see objects in orbit around each other and your explanation is there is a mystical invisible force-at-a-distance whose origin we cannot explain that binds these objects together, or maybe space and time are curved for unknown reasons by the presence of stuff.

Yep, science is silly.

21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 18, 2007, 09:23:38 PM »

Existentialism "claims that individual human beings have full responsibility for creating the meanings of their own lives." Morals, values, opinions are all inherent in that, and become known as authentic choices. Being that choices take place in the mind, that is subjective.

The choice is subjective but as established, the relationship with the environment -- the necessities for survival -- is not.  It's possible to make a bad value judgment and it's possible for a moral system to be opposed to or in synergy with objective reality.

They don't need it. They do however, need water and air to survive as is documented. Humans needing shelter is an opinion.

Yeah yeah, I've already admitted that if you have no goals at all, you don't need anything.  I insist that that's a circumstance not worth discussing, however.

Going off the fact that right and wrong are not factually based, or objectively based,

You are begging the question.  The question of objective basis for "right" and "wrong" is the very heart of the argument.

People dislike my idea because they think that accepting it will change how the world works and will cause chaos.

I don't think that accepting your idea will change the way the world works -- I think the world already works that way!  I think moral relativism is one of the great problems of our age.  It is no longer acceptable to pass moral judgment on the actions of an individual or a country: doing so may not be taking into account the individual's upbringing or the country's culture.  Individuals and countries are only criticized when it is politically expedient to do so.  In fact, in our own society, the rights of individuals (to you, the rights we imagine individuals to have) are being increasingly violated in favor of the "public good" (to you, what the government imagines the good of what they imagine the public to be).

If moral relativism were to prevail, it would be meaningless for anybody to try to argue that anybody else's actions were morally wrong.  The only solution to any moral dilemma would be to leave it up to the whim of some unaccountable arbitrator -- God, a dictator, or "the majority".

If moral objectivism were to prevail, there is no guarantee that people will behave morally, but there will at least be the guarantee that any given situation can be analyzed and that rational debate about its moral status can take place.

That's false, and a reason I know they don't understand it. Understanding and accepting my idea will allow people to be less irrational to events and choices made by other people. It will allow them to speak more accurately.

Sure, your idea allows just about anything!  What does your idea prohibit or prevent?  By what principle are adherents to your idea guided?  About which issues does your idea allow people to speak more accurately?  Certainly not moral issues.

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 18, 2007, 08:10:19 AM »

... if you knew that killing one old man would save a coach of 50 children and there was no other option, which is the morally right action to choose?

You only run into this sort of problem if you believe in the intellectually bankrupt notion of "the common good".  The notion that the few must be sacrificed for the good of the many is the hallmark of every argument that morality doesn't really exist; conversely, tyrants claim that morality is subjective in order to oppress their chosen enemy, and justify it by saying it's for the common good.

If you instead assume every individual to be an end unto himself, not merely a slave subordinate to society, then to unilaterally initiate violence against an individual is always morally wrong.

I hate talking about morals, it's such an awkward subject because the whole concept is based in our imaginations. It's not like maths or science where opinions count for nothing.

It's scary to hear people say things like this.  On the one hand they use examples like "what about the good of the fifty children?" and on the other, they say, "actually morality doesn't really exist.  It's imaginary."  Doesn't that mean that I can go about murdering children willy-nilly, as long as I imagine it to be moral?  It's worse than inconsistent -- there's nothing more terrifying than a society guided by no principles other than their own whims.

In any case, I have already presented a picture of objective morality in my post below; I'd appreciate it if anybody who wants to claim that "it's all in our imagination" address the suggestion that man's values are derived from his objective nature and the objective nature of the world with which he interacts.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity

« on: June 18, 2007, 07:59:00 AM »

How do you know what ones have fields?

How do you know which ones do?  Basically you make an assumption that everything does.  I expect that we've actually checked, first-hand and directly, only a very small fraction of everything.

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 18, 2007, 12:29:43 AM »

So can we get back to talking about the objectivity of ethics and morality now?

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity

« on: June 18, 2007, 12:28:40 AM »

"Is this question serious?"
Yes  because if you thought stars etc exerted gravitation forces whilst the Earth did not I was wondering on your teory of matter or Gravity propogation.

The reason it seems like a possibly-not-serious question is that the ways in which stars and the Earth are apparently different are two many to enumerate on this forum.  Given the list, it shouldn't seem so shocking to learn that only some of them emit gravitational fields.

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 17, 2007, 04:37:14 PM »

I never said it had to come from god.

I was referring to "And those people are probably religious, or just dumb."  I guess I didn't see a distinction between "absolute" and "objective".

That's basically existentialism (which I support) and, subjective.

I don't think it's existentialism, and it's definitely not subjective.  That humans need water, air, and shelter is not subjective.  That they need to eat is not subjective, and that they have certain abilities that they can use to acquire their needs is not subjective.

And what about the people who are self-destructive? I guess we are throwing those statistics out since it doesn't help.

I'm not throwing out the statistics.  I'm saying that a person who destroys himself can't achieve anything else afterwards, so existence is a necessary condition for any other goal.  I said that explicitly.  I don't say that everybody has the same goals, or that everybody's idea of morality is the same, or that everybody implicitly follows the same morality.

Facts don't embrace self-destruction provided people actually understand them, and that's a common assumption people place in it. They think it's too awful a suggestion which is laughable.

I don't actually understand this paragraph at all.  Could you explain it?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity

« on: June 17, 2007, 03:58:05 PM »

What characteristics do the stars have that the Earth does not?

Is this question serious?

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Ethics Question

« on: June 17, 2007, 03:55:43 PM »

Rights (ie human rights), like morals, are social constructs. They will change over time as societal influences and characteristics change. They are most certainly subjective and relative. They are not and have never been factual.

Obviously, what people think is moral is a social construct.  But this doesn't mean that there isn't an objectively true morality.  Morality doesn't just have to come from God; that's an assumption that only a very unimaginative person would be forced to make.

Morality can come from the nature of the agent in question, as it relates to the nature of the object of his actions.  Humans have a nature which places certain demands for survival on them.  The prerequisites of survival, being a prerequisite of all other goals besides self-destruction, are prerequisites of all other goals.  Things that help an individual to achieve his goals are valuable to him; since the prerequisites of a person's non-self-destructive goals are objectively defined, we have an objective theory of value, i.e., an objective morality (a morality being a theory of value).

divito's suggestions to the contrary are basically a denial that a human being has an objective nature that places demands on his behavior for his survival.  To insist that morality can only be subjective is to embrace self-destruction.  divito can make it is goal in life to rid mankind of morality if he likes (since what good is morality if it's not objective?), but I will always argue in favor of rights and values.

Hm... p.s.: I take it back: morality can still be useful even if not objective.  If you can convince people that your arbitrary system of values is right, you can exercise arbitrary control over their behavior.  The notion of subjective morality is extremely useful for tyrants.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Inflation and the Federal Reserve

« on: June 12, 2007, 12:15:24 PM »

Actually, I'm pretty sure he's right in that the GDP goes up so technically, everyone's buying and selling at pretty much the same price...it's just different numbers.

Obviously that's true in some sense.  If it were really 25 times harder to buy bread now than it was in 1913, I don't think we'd have survived this long.  What irks me is that inflation is a source of revenue for the government at the long-term expense of citizens.

... it ends up hobbling along somewhat like a broken wheel. Obviously, not perfect as there will be fluctuations, but they do manage to control it so that the supply and demand of a completely free market end up making the wheel come completely unhinged and send the cart sliding down the hill unassisted.

Indeed.  I feel like having a committee trying to manage America's economy like that is like a person in a raft trying to keep the ocean's surface perfectly level.

You seem to hold more libertarian views about the market, though, and that's acceptable,

Why, thank you

and I almost agree with some of it. The Fed, for example, are probably not the best system that could be in place right now. But meh. It's the best we've got for now, and until we get a libertarian president (Ron Paul! Ron Paul!)--which are few and far between, as left-wingers hate it and right-winged politicians have all but abandoned it save a few (Ron Paul! Ron Paul!)--I'm fairly positive that everything will stay exactly how it is.

Huh.  I have heard of this fellow but not read about him before now.  Having done some cursory research, I find I mostly agree with his stances.  I nearly flipped when I saw the Marque and Reprisal Act.  Omg I would totally sign up for a letter of marque.  Yeah, I think I could vote for this guy.  Unfortunately he doesn't sound like the sort to drum up much support for any of his initiatives.

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Inflation and the Federal Reserve

« on: June 12, 2007, 12:00:37 PM »

What you said about inflation rings true, and insidiously, is by design. There was a man, I forget his name, but I WILL post links to this data, that basically was being sued by the IRS, and was facing like eons in prison over this shit. He found, and I mean literally, a law, on the books, that literally, NEGATES the income tax. Not just a law, but in the actual Constitution itself.

Maybe you're thinking of this guy?

I have looked into this a bit.  It seems that there's a growing movement of Americans who believe that (a) there is no law requiring them to file a tax return, or (b) there is no law requiring them to pay income taxes, or (c) the income tax is unconstitutional.

I don't have an answer to (a).  However, I have found and read the law that requires individual wage-earners to pay a portion of their wages to the federal government.  You can read this law, the Internal Revenue Code (at the very beginning of title 26) at this website.  "Taxable income" is well-defined in terms of gross income.  As for (c), the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified 1913) allows for a direct, unapportioned tax on income.  This violates prior amendments which require that all direct taxes be apportioned, but same goes for the amendment that repeals the prohibition on the sale of alcohol.  The arguments that the Sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified are without merit.

Basically, the income tax is totally legal.  That said...

Whatever can be argued for or against the current United States System of Government, this one is by far the most insidious, and morally, socially, wrong.

... I totally agree with that sentiment.

I hesitate to recommend this, but what the hell: there's a very skewed documentary on this stuff by Aaron Russo, called America: Freedom to Fascism.  It's made up primarily of quotations that have been blatantly mangled, distorted, elided, edited, or otherwise taken out of context; and secondarily, of interviews with interviews with laymen and people with political agendas.  Still, I think there's an ounce of truth in it, and if you take it at face value, it's more than a pound of scary.

I definitely believe that America is seriously diverging from its freedom-centric roots, and that sadly, other countries (e.g. Canada) were never interested in the concept in the first place.