While We Wait: Part 5

[Neverwonagame3]

That's incorrect. We can look at the actions that a particular moral code would demand, and if those actions are ones that are commonly agreed to be immoral (like genocide), then we can determine that the moral code is an invalid one. Also note that excluding genocide and killing from the actions your moral code can demand is a cop out. Essentially, you're trying to make your moral code appear more attractive by arbitrarily excluding certain actions from it, to convince yourself and others that its premises aren't flawed. If you aren't willing to follow a moral code to its logical conclusion, then it's impossible to debate its validity.

Regarding God's role in morality, we have no way of determining what He considers moral, so invoking Him is pointless. Maybe your conception of God demands that everyone becomes as intelligent as humanly possible, regardless of the cost. That's fine, maybe mine values individual human dignity and liberty. Unless you've got a bulletin from God clarifying His position on the issue, invoking Him doesn't help your argument at all.

How irrational of you.

Worth it? Why? What leads you to the assumption that preserving intelligence is so morally important? What leads you to the assumption that the government has the right to intervene for that purpose?

Authoritarian actions in some circumstances aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about following a philosophy that advocates authoritarianism. Such a philosophy demands that authoritarian action be taken to defend whichever values are upheld by the authority. I'm looking at the root justification of the action here, not the actions themselves.

1: The idea of "inherently" invalid is arbitrary- you have not got a demonstration that something is such. Anyway, what I advocated earlier was not actually genocide.

Anyway, what you are effectively doing is imposing what most people think is morally wrong on those who dissent from the common line.

2:

(though mass genocide may be going too far, and for political reasons things along those lines would be a bad idea anyway).

It would be a bad idea anyway, but even without the political repurcussions I thought it might be going too far.

3:

Regarding God's role in morality, we have no way of determining what He considers moral, so invoking Him is pointless. Maybe your conception of God demands that everyone becomes as intelligent as humanly possible, regardless of the cost. That's fine, maybe mine values individual human dignity and liberty. Unless you've got a bulletin from God clarifying His position on the issue, invoking Him doesn't help your argument at all.

If, say, the Christian God exists, it is easy to figure out what he advocates on most issues. As I advocated earlier, this should be tested on empirical evidence.

4:

Worth it? Why? What leads you to the assumption that preserving intelligence is so morally important? What leads you to the assumption that the government has the right to intervene for that purpose?

The fact that it does more good then evil. Better 1000 people in jail then the whole world 10 IQ points lower.

5:

Authoritarian actions in some circumstances aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about following a philosophy that advocates authoritarianism. Such a philosophy demands that authoritarian action be taken to defend whichever values are upheld by the authority. I'm looking at the root justification of the action here, not the actions themselves.

If there are actual values which morally should be upheld, authoritarian action to uphold them is justified. Unless you can demonstrated authoritarian actions or authoritarian behaviour inherently wrong, that stands.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

1: The idea of "inherently" invalid is arbitrary- you have not got a demonstration that something is such. Anyway, what I advocated earlier was not actually genocide.

Why not!? If you're so convinced that 10 IQ points are such a precious investment, why not commit genocide to preserve them? Why not commit genocide to save 50 IQ points? Why the double standard?

Anyway, what you are effectively doing is imposing what most people think is morally wrong on those who dissent from the common line.

What? How can you accuse me of doing exactly what you're advocating?

If, say, the Christian God exists, it is easy to figure out what he advocates on most issues. As I advocated earlier, this should be tested on empirical evidence.

So, you believe that there exists strong empirical evidence for the existence of the a certain God, above all others, and that it's obvious what He wants us to do. Here I thought you were trying to pass yourself off as Spock, but apparently you're not even committed to that.

The fact that it does more good then evil. Better 1000 people in jail then the whole world 10 IQ points lower.

Why? You have yet to put forward a single justification for that sort of statement.

If there are actual values which morally should be upheld, authoritarian action to uphold them is justified. Unless you can demonstrated authoritarian actions or authoritarian behaviour inherently wrong, that stands.

Great, we have some common gound. Unfortunately, you seem to be completely unwilling to justify the values that you want to bludgeon everyone into following. Am I wrong in saying that values must be judged by the actions they demand that a person performs? If so, please put forward your own reasoning to arrive at the values you espouse (though if you're going to tell me that it's plainly obvious that the Christian God wants us to follow them, don't bother).

 

[North King]

True, but you cannot expect it to be instantly known by ever person in the argument. Then going on to look down on them when they ask what it means or respond incorrectly. Language elitism is one of my least favorite things.

Playing the victim in order to try and win an argument is one of my least favorite things. No one's being elitist here.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Why not!? If you're so convinced that 10 IQ points are such a precious investment, why not commit genocide to preserve them? Why not commit genocide to save 50 IQ points? Why the double standard?

What? How can you accuse me of doing exactly what you're advocating?

So, you believe that there exists strong empirical evidence for the existence of the a certain God, above all others, and that it's obvious what He wants us to do. Here I thought you were trying to pass yourself off as Spock, but apparently you're not even committed to that.

Why? You have yet to put forward a single justification for that sort of statement.

Great, we have some common gound. Unfortunately, you seem to be completely unwilling to justify the values that you want to bludgeon everyone into following. Am I wrong in saying that values must be judged by the actions they demand that a person performs? If so, please put forward your own reasoning to arrive at the values you espouse (though if you're going to tell me that it's plainly obvious that the Christian God wants us to follow them, don't bother).

I meant IF the Christian God exists. If he doesn't, my view is that no values whatsoever should be followed. (The reason I espose morality is that I'm not sure) The reason I don't support genocide

The value judgement I made was an ATTEMPT at an estimate- sometimes it is not always clear.

IF the Christian God objectively exists (there is evidence for the historical accuracy of Mark's gospel, assuming that an a priori assumption of no miracles is not arbitrarily imposed upon the evidence). Like any claim, it should be assessed on the evidence.

The difference between what you and I are doing is that I am arguing that IF God exists there are objective morals- this is an imposistion, but one based in the facts. (And one of a minority upon the majority)

By contrast,

That's incorrect. We can look at the actions that a particular moral code would demand, and if those actions are ones that are commonly agreed to be immoral (like genocide), then we can determine that the moral code is an invalid one.

You are imposing the idea that genocide is morally wrong for the mere reason it is commonly agreed to be.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I meant IF the Christian God exists. If he doesn't, my view is that no values whatsoever should be followed. (The reason I espose morality is that I'm not sure) The reason I don't support genocide

The value judgement I made was an ATTEMPT at an estimate- sometimes it is not always clear.

IF the Christian God objectively exists (there is evidence for the historical accuracy of Mark's gospel, assuming that an a priori assumption of no miracles is not arbitrarily imposed upon the evidence). Like any claim, it should be assessed on the evidence.

The difference between what you and I are doing is that I am arguing that IF God exists there are objective morals- this is an imposistion, but one based in the facts. (And one of a minority upon the majority)

The probability that there's a Christian God is no more than the probability that there's a God that rewards people for not believing in a Christian God, and that doesn't even take into account the other religions whose gods will punish you for believing in a false god, or the fact that if a Christian God existed, he wouldn't be stupid enough to reward people for following his morals for such a hollow reason. Pascal's wager was a cute idea, but it's ultimately worthless.

For some reason, you seem to believe that the existence of a supreme being "creates" morals by some undefined process. I'm not sure why the existence of God would create morals, while the existence of humans wouldn't. Objective morals cannot be scientifically verified or demonstrated. Neither can human consciousness. That does not mean that they don't exist. Science is one lens for observing the world, and philosophy is a complementary lens. Neither sees everything, and if you insist that only one is valid, then you're just half as foolish as the person that uses neither.

You are imposing the idea that genocide is morally wrong for the mere reason it is commonly agreed to be.

I'm not imposing that idea on anyone. I'm using it as a basic litmus test. I believe that any system of morality that advocates genocide as a necessary measure to preserve some arbitrary value is morally bankrupt. If you disagree with me, then I'll just have to consider you to have a completely alien worldview, and acknowledge that we have no common ground with which we can understand each other. Fortunately for you, my personal system of morality states that even sociopaths have a right to their own beliefs, as long as they don't commit any crimes due to them.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

The probability that there's a Christian God is no more than the probability that there's a God that rewards people for not believing in a Christian God, and that doesn't even take into account the other religions whose gods will punish you for believing in a false god, or the fact that if a Christian God existed, he wouldn't be stupid enough to reward people for following his morals for such a hollow reason. Pascal's wager was a cute idea, but it's ultimately worthless.

For some reason, you seem to believe that the existence of a supreme being "creates" morals by some undefined process. I'm not sure why the existence of God would create morals, while the existence of humans wouldn't. Objective morals cannot be scientifically verified or demonstrated. Neither can human consciousness. That does not mean that they don't exist. Science is one lens for observing the world, and philosophy is a complementary lens. Neither sees everything, and if you insist that only one is valid, then you're just half as foolish as the person that uses neither.

I'm not imposing that idea on anyone. I'm using it as a basic litmus test. I believe that any system of morality that advocates genocide as a necessary measure to preserve some arbitrary value is morally bankrupt. If you disagree with me, then I'll just have to consider you to have a completely alien worldview, and acknowledge that we have no common ground with which we can understand each other. Fortunately for you, my personal system of morality states that even sociopaths have a right to their own beliefs, as long as they don't commit any crimes due to them.

You're point about a hollow reason for following a religion makes good sense (I'll think about that one), but the rest doesn't stand up. The Gospel of Mark was estimated to be made 40 years after the events it refers to- conventionally, historians accept a document made that long after the event. Only miracles make an exception to the rule.

As for the second one, as I said earlier I didn't actually advocate genocide (because I believe that if the Christian God exists, he would be against it). But if one is to be rational (I assume you don't reject rationality), one must justify their belief system somehow.

I didn't claim a God creates morals. What I claimed earlier was that they impose them by enforcing them- therefore there is a good reason to obey, and in some sense an objective morality can be talked about. Without one, there is no reason for somebody to accept morals except as a prior assumption.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

You're point about a hollow reason for following a religion makes good sense (I'll think about that one), but the rest doesn't stand up. The Gospel of Mark was estimated to be made 40 years after the events it refers to- conventionally, historians accept a document made that long after the event. Only miracles make an exception to the rule.

The Book of Mormon was written long after that. I don't suppose you hold it to be even more reliable?

As for the second one, as I said earlier I didn't actually advocate genocide (because I believe that if the Christian God exists, he would be against it). But if one is to be rational (I assume you don't reject rationality), one must justify their belief system somehow.

If you hold a certain system of values to be all-important, then you must advocate any and all means necessary to protect those values. If you just append "but don't commit genocide" to that, it just means that you don't hold those values to be absolute after all. And considering that the Christian God has actively solicited genocide, I don't think you can use his disapproval as an excuse.

I didn't claim a God creates morals. What I claimed earlier was that they impose them by enforcing them- therefore there is a good reason to obey, and in some sense an objective morality can be talked about. Without one, there is no reason for somebody to accept morals except as a prior assumption.

That misses the very point of morality in the first place. If you follow a code of laws simply because you'll be punished for not doing so, that's not being moral - it's acting in your own self-interest. An all-knowing god would be able to tell the difference, and he'd reward the truly moral accordingly, while probably chastising those who only followed from fear.

 

[Amon Savag]

And the stories were generally of roughly equal quality to many of the arguments in this thread. I'd rather clutter up one thread with . .. .. .. ., not all of them, thanks.

Oh, I'm sorry dachs, you must not remember them times because you weren't there. Don't try to give input where you don't have a clue. My best example of what I was trying to get at is practically all of stjnes4 and 5.

 

[jeps]

Vegetarianism? Reminds me of this.

thats what i thought of too! and i guess i cant help it, I'm canadian, but i love the worms!

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)

EDIT: and my favourite sign from the music video:
Give Peas A Chance (though it reminds me of the simpsons episode a little)

 

[Dachs]

Oh, I'm sorry dachs, you must not remember them times because you weren't there. Don't try to give input where you don't have a clue. My best example of what I was trying to get at is practically all of stjnes4 and 5.

Ooh, somebody's assuming I never looked through archives! I've been around longer than the bloody While We Wait threads, thanks. Besides, how awesome can a NES be that has a misspelling in the friggin' name? A lot of these stories are paragraph-long hack jobs, not anything real great anyway. I mean, every NES has a few good stories but in stJNES 4 and 5 they were as few and far between as they were in many other NESes that appeared later on. (That's not even referencing the utter idiocy of some of the actions that occurred in the NES itself.)

 

[Amon Savag]

Extremely wrong, Dachs. If you look through stjnes4, the last 50 pages or so are filled with pointless stories regarding their countries, like football games and elections and everything.

I guess my point in all this is there's a whole off topic part of the CFC site... I wonder why we have to bring that part of the forums to this part? It's not too hard to start a NESers "While we wait" thread in that forum, and leave this forum for "Never ending stories".

 

[Neverwonagame3]

BTW, what are some examples of Stupdiest NESer moments?

 

[Symphony D.]

True, but you cannot expect it to be instantly known by ever person in the argument. Then going on to look down on them when they ask what it means or respond incorrectly. Language elitism is one of my least favorite things.

Luckymoose has seized upon the zeitgeist vis-à-vis elitist protocol, and the foppish quantum of the population such bloviating verbosity represents is anathema; he wishes to defenestrate it. It betrays a bona fide lack of eptitude in personal relations and is a kind of snobbery which could never be pro bono publico. Such exchanges are an unbalanced quid pro quo, and are only undertaken by those dastardly finks who revel in schadenfreude. Truly, he is a man of the people, and much kudos should be given to him for his staunch opposition to the biased arete of the ivory tower and its ilk.

 

[Amon Savag]

This thread (10 characters)

EDIT- Another example of the stupidest moments of NESers would be sheep in StJNES4, he was Egypt and I was the USSA. Me and Sheep got into a disagreement on AIM, and it was totally OOC, but he wrote a story about how a USSA national ass-ass-inated his prime minister... Then he got alot of members of his alliance do the same thing, and soon I had a coalition against me. Which I solidly whalloped in 1 turn.

 

[Ninja Dude]

Luckymoose has seized upon the zeitgeist vis-à-vis elitist protocol, and the foppish quantum of the population such bloviating verbosity represents is anathema; he wishes to defenestrate it. It betrays a bona fide lack of eptitude in personal relations and is a kind of snobbery which could never be pro bono publico. Such exchanges are an unbalanced quid pro quo, and are only undertaken by those dastardly finks who revel in schadenfreude. Truly, he is a man of the people, and much kudos should be given to him for his staunch opposition to the biased arete of the ivory tower and its ilk.

Que?

(tenchar)

 

[Dachs]

Extremely wrong, Dachs. If you look through stjnes4, the last 50 pages or so are filled with pointless stories regarding their countries, like football games and elections and everything.

Stories in and of themselves aren't pointless. But cluttering up threads and artificially increasing their length while producing something, the vast majority of which I don't want to read, is, in my opinion, Less Good than putting almost all of it into one thread, which serves as an Off-Topic without many of the idiots that inhabit Off-Topic.

I guess my point in all this is there's a whole off topic part of the CFC site... I wonder why we have to bring that part of the forums to this part? It's not too hard to start a NESers "While we wait" thread in that forum, and leave this forum for "Never ending stories".

If you don't want to interact with many of the people on OT, but still want to screw around while waiting for updates (which is, after all, what I'm doing), then WWW works just fine. And, finally: you can ignore this thread easily enough. You can't ignore other participants in a NES because they might have information for you, so you have to wade through their crap every time you want to find an update or look for the occasional gem of useful information or stories. Not my idea of fun or efficient.

As for stupid moments in NESing, I have two words: Luckymoose, Egypt.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

@j_eps- I liked 'My Canada Includes Vegetables'.

 

[silver 2039]

As for stupid moments in NESing, I have two words: Luckymoose, Egypt.

That doesn't even come close. Fantasmo, Australia is better. Or Toteone, Anything.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Lord_Iggy: Ottoman Turks.

 

[LightFang]

BTW, what are some examples of Stupdiest NESer moments?

Any time Nuclear_kid's made a decision as a mod.

Ooh...low blow...but it was too easy.