NationStates Jolt Archive

We all know times are pretty bad.

I just overheard a story where somebody stole the cash box from a Brownie Cookie table.

Stealing money from 6-8 year old girls is pretty low.....

lulz.

We all know times are pretty bad.

I just overheard a story where somebody stole the cash box from a Brownie Cookie table.

Stealing money from 6-8 year old girls is pretty low.....

You are sadly under the impression that most people aren't assholes. You'll learn.

Hey, I only wanted some cookies! Those girls wouldn't give me loan money, so I ...I... *sobs*

We all know times are pretty bad.

I just overheard a story where somebody stole the cash box from a Brownie Cookie table.

Stealing money from 6-8 year old girls is pretty low.....

I remember something in Full Metal Jacket about shooting kids being easier because they're slower, but I cannot find the exact quotation.

:(

We all know times are pretty bad.

I just overheard a story where somebody stole the cash box from a Brownie Cookie table.

Stealing money from 6-8 year old girls is pretty low.....

it was the campfire girls! you know how they're trying to muscle in on the Brownie's territory!

If it was badly secured, there's little/no chance of being caught, what's to stop anyone from taking it? They practically deserve it.

If it was badly secured, there's little/no chance of being caught, what's to stop anyone from taking it? They practically deserve it.

Oh don't be such a wanker.

If it was badly secured, there's little/no chance of being caught, what's to stop anyone from taking it? They practically deserve it.

...

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-bird-cat-cage.jpg

I don't understand the reasoning behind condemning this. Is it because they're kids? Is it because you believe stealing is wrong?

I don't understand the reasoning behind condemning this. Is it because they're kids? Is it because you believe stealing is wrong?

Both. Do you believe stealing is morally or legally acceptable?

Both. Do you believe stealing is morally or legally acceptable?

Stealing is legally unacceptable. I don't think stealing has any moral value, anymore than I think anything else has moral value. Stealing is stealing, it's neither right nor wrong.

Stealing is legally unacceptable. I don't think stealing has any moral value, anymore than I think anything else has moral value. Stealing is stealing, it's neither right nor wrong.

Stealing is wrong, it's a system where the strong take from the weak, through a show of force or a fierce appearance. It tramples the rights of the weak, and furthermore, is counter to everything human civilization has strived for for the past several millenia.

Stealing is wrong, it's a system where the strong take from the weak, through a show of force or a fierce appearance. It tramples the rights of the weak, and furthermore, is counter to everything human civilization has strived for for the past several millenia.

Why do you think humans have "rights?" What authority bestows these rights? Who decides what wrong means?

Society does, through law. We collectively dictate morality. It is an artifical, contrived system, invented entirely by the minds of man. Specifically, men who reject their animalistic nature.

Morality holds no authority, because mankind holds no authority over the universe.

Stealing is illegal, nothing more. Morality exists only in the mind of men, the universe doesn't care for your morals.

EDIT: I'm pretty tired, I'll have to argue this another time.

Stealing is wrong, it's a system where the strong take from the weak, through a show of force or a fierce appearance.
Getbrett's as close to an amoralist as you're probably going to get on these boards, just so you don't wind up arguing in circles.


We collectively dictate morality. It is an artifical, contrived system, invented entirely by the minds of man. Specifically, men who reject their animalistic nature.
I'd say the evidence that nonhuman animals operate with systems of moral/immoral conduct would refute some of the above.

Further, I'd say morality can be derived from the very nature, the very 'animality', of humans.

I remember something in Full Metal Jacket about shooting kids being easier because they're slower, but I cannot find the exact quotation.

:(

"I like shooting at the women and children because they're easier to lead."

Or something like that.

You mean when they're flying in the chopper and the guy is just mowing people down in the paddies right?

I don't understand the reasoning behind condemning this. Is it because they're kids? Is it because you believe stealing is wrong?
Because people condemn actions and persons that they disagree with, and many people disagree with theft (especially from kids)?

The first step to being a relativist is to realize that morality is constructed and artificial; the second is to construct your own morality. Finally, you learn to accept that other people will do the same and that they have just as much right to condemn what they disagree with as you do.
You seem to be trapped at Stage I. Hopefully stem cell research will cure your jerkass tendencies.

Reminds me of a story I saw on the news last night. Apparently thieves have taken to stealing food from hospital carts here in NZ. Times must be very hard. I almost felt sorry for said thieves, as they must be pretty fucking hungry.

Meh, those little girls just would have used the money for drugs anyway.

We all know times are pretty bad.

I just overheard a story where somebody stole the cash box from a Brownie Cookie table.

Stealing money from 6-8 year old girls is pretty low.....

I needed money it was there. besides the sob story in the local news paper ensure donations easily matching what they lost.

And here I thought this was going to be about the recent mass shootings...

You are sadly under the impression that most people aren't assholes. You'll learn.

Heheh. Indeed.

"I like shooting at the women and children because they're easier to lead."

Or something like that.

You mean when they're flying in the chopper and the guy is just mowing people down in the paddies right?

Door Gunner: Git some! Git some! Git some, yeah, yeah, yeah! Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC! You guys oughta do a story about me sometime!
Private Joker: Why should we do a story about you?
Door Gunner: 'Cuz I'm so fuckin' good! I done got me 157 dead gooks killed. Plus 50 water buffalo too! Them's all confirmed!
Private Joker: Any women or children?
Door Gunner: Sometimes!
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?

SNIP

Yeah, that's it. Been a few years.


Thanks:)

Because people condemn actions and persons that they disagree with, and many people disagree with theft (especially from kids)?

The first step to being a relativist is to realize that morality is constructed and artificial; the second is to construct your own morality. Finally, you learn to accept that other people will do the same and that they have just as much right to condemn what they disagree with as you do.
You seem to be trapped at Stage I. Hopefully stem cell research will cure your jerkass tendencies.

If I thought constructing morality was a worthwhile pursuit, I'd have done it long ago. However, it's not. It's stupid. Why place artifical limits on yourself? It doesn't make sense.

If I thought constructing morality was a worthwhile pursuit, I'd have done it long ago. However, it's not. It's stupid. Why place artifical limits on yourself? It doesn't make sense.

If the well-being of your fellow human beings isn't motivation enough, then how about self-interest? Presumably you place those limits on yourself, and respect the limits placed upon you, because the alternative is anarchy, in which case your personal survival and well-being, and that of any offspring you have, will be threatened. In short, it benefits both us as individuals, and the survival of our species, to respect these so-called "artifical limits."

By your reasoning, their would be nothing intrinsically wrong with going out and stealing someone's life savings to buy yourself a second car, or for that matter going out and raping a child. However, I imagine you'd feel somewhat different if it was your savings or your child. Furthermore, if you think about it in any depth, and even if you totally lack empathy, surely you can see the negative consequences of failing to defend those rights for everyone else? In short, it is wrong because it inflicts harm in some manner, or runs an unacceptable risk of doing so.

Of course, you could reply by saying that you simply obey the law out of self-interest, but would not find anything inherently wrong with violating it. I would reply by saying first that this is a repulsively callous, sick, and evil view, and second that it is wrong to needlessly inflict harm on others, both out of personal self-interest and out of our collective interests and also because it is simply wrong to needlessly inflict suffering on another. I don't know what reasoned argument I can make for that last point. Its one of those things that is so self-evident one finds it hard to articulate.

Honestly, I'm not sure how best to debate this. Maybe I'm just too tired to think straight, but I'm not sure how to proceed. However, I'd be interested to know how you define morality, since I feel that knowing this might give me a better understanding of why you take the position that you do. On the other hand, if you can't even clarify what it is that you're defining the existence of, I'd say that's a pretty effective rebuttal of your position. So, how do you define morality?

Incidentally, I find it somewhat disturbing to think that you consider the idea of stealing being wrong to be "limiting."

If the well-being of your fellow human beings isn't motivation enough, then how about self-interest? Presumably you place those limits on yourself, and respect the limits placed upon you, because the alternative is anarchy, in which case your personal survival and well-being, and that of any offspring you have, will be threatened. In short, it benefits both us as individuals, and the survival of our species, to respect these so-called "artifical limits."


I am obliged to no one but myself. The only limit I place on myself is avoidance of punishment. This is the extent of my "morality": if I don't believe I'll be caught, even if it's illegal, it's fine by me.

I really don't care about anyone else, our species, or convincing others to apply my reasoning to their own life.


By your reasoning, their would be nothing intrinsically wrong with going out and stealing someone's life savings to buy yourself a second car, or for that matter going out and raping a child. However, I imagine you'd feel somewhat different if it was your savings or your child. Furthermore, if you think about it in any depth, and even if you totally lack empathy, surely you can see the negative consequences of failing to defend those rights for everyone else? In short, it is wrong because it inflicts harm in some manner, or runs an unacceptable risk of doing so.


There is nothing intrinsically wrong about stealing, nor is there anything intrinsically wrong with raping children. Quite simply because there's no such thing as intrinsic morality. If there was such a thing, it would exist regardless of the existence of humanity. It would be a major foundation of the construction of the universe.

I wouldn't like if it was my money or my child. I can see the harm it'd cause.

That doesn't mean I care if it happens to others.


Of course, you could reply by saying that you simply obey the law out of self-interest, but would not find anything inherently wrong with violating it. I would reply by saying first that this is a repulsively callous, sick, and evil view, and second that it is wrong to needlessly inflict harm on others, both out of personal self-interest and out of our collective interests and also because it is simply wrong to needlessly inflict suffering on another. I don't know what reasoned argument I can make for that last point. Its one of those things that is so self-evident one finds it hard to articulate.


It's callous, yes. By some definitions it may even be "sick". Parroting on about how it's "wrong" to inflict suffering doesn't explain the why you think this is the case. Why is it wrong? Because it is? Horrible circular logic.


Honestly, I'm not sure how best to debate this. Maybe I'm just too tired to think straight, but I'm not sure how to proceed. However, I'd be interested to know how you define morality, since I feel that knowing this might give me a better understanding of why you take the position that you do. On the other hand, if you can't even clarify what it is that you're defining the existence of, I'd say that's a pretty effective rebuttal of your position. So, how do you define morality?


I reject the existence of objective moral values; i.e., neither "right" nor "wrong" exist as intrinsic qualities of acts. Acts simply are. I reject subjective morality as created artifacts of the flawed human mind; as profoundly arrogant attempts to enforce order on a chaotic, uncaring universe.

Morality does not exist, the morality you create is a lie.


Incidentally, I find it somewhat disturbing to think that you consider the idea of stealing being wrong to be "limiting."

Anything that limits my behaviour is by definition limiting.

I remember something in Full Metal Jacket about shooting kids being easier because they're slower, but I cannot find the exact quotation.

:(

"I like shooting at the women and children because they're easier to lead."

Or something like that.

You mean when they're flying in the chopper and the guy is just mowing people down in the paddies right?

I think the story was originally quoted in Michael Herr's Dispatches, well worth reading for anyone who hasn't, a journalist asks a marine

"How can you shoot women and children?" and he replied, "It's easy, you just don't lead 'em as much."

If I thought constructing morality was a worthwhile pursuit, I'd have done it long ago. However, it's not. It's stupid. Why place artifical limits on yourself? It doesn't make sense.
Because if you actually lived by the silly ass nonsense you spout here, you'd have been smacked/killed/jailed a long time ago.
Your "position" is one of a spoiled child. Dogs possess more philosophy, depth and interest to the observer.

Because if you actually lived by the silly ass nonsense you spout here, you'd have been smacked/killed/jailed a long time ago.
Your "position" is one of a spoiled child. Dogs possess more philosophy, depth and interest to the observer.

Of course I live by what I say. I obey the law unless two specific points are fulfilled: one, it's beneficial to me not to obey, and two, I can be sure I won't be caught.

Just because I reject the notion of "morality" doesn't mean I am immoral. In fact, it is impossible for me to be immoral, as immorality implies I'd accept the existence of morality.

I look upon you and smile at the self-imposed confines you live within. You are worse than a dog, at least dogs accept what they are.

Just because I reject the notion of "morality" doesn't mean I am immoral. In fact, it is impossible for me to be immoral, as immorality implies I'd accept the existence of morality.
I never said you were immoral; I said you were a "spoiled child." Immature, undeveloped, obnoxious, annoying.
I might have called you immoral too, if I'd wanted, and that would be in my purview. You are a thing within the world which I may pass moral judgments on and label as I see fit.
I look upon you and smile at the self-imposed confines you live within. You are worse than a dog, at least dogs accept what they are.
I'm human, an example of that social animal which has elevated itself to king of the world by cooperation and a basic instinct toward altruism. I roll my eyes at your vein attempts to elevate puerility with nonsense.

*watches*

This is pretty good stuff...

*munches popcorn*

Anyone else want some?

I never said you were immoral; I said you were a "spoiled child." Immature, undeveloped, obnoxious, annoying.
I might have called you immoral too, if I'd wanted, and that would be in my purview. You are a thing within the world which I may pass moral judgments on and label as I see fit.

I'm human, an example of that social animal which has elevated itself to king of the world by cooperation and a basic instinct toward altruism. I roll my eyes at your vein attempts to elevate puerility with nonsense.

As a species, altruism may grant you the title of king of the world. As an individual, understanding the stupidity of altruism grants you the title of king of the species.

I'd say the evidence that nonhuman animals operate with systems of moral/immoral conduct would refute some of the above.

Further, I'd say morality can be derived from the very nature, the very 'animality', of humans.

i'll second this, and add that at least what i consider to be morality, (which i like to summarize, however approximately, as the avoidance of causing suffering and harm) can also be derived from survival of the species. i remember reading a fairly convincing argument to that effect in one of the editorials in analog sf magazine sometime a couple of decades ago.

As a species, altruism may grant you the title of king of the world. As an individual, understanding the stupidity of altruism grants you the title of king of the species.
With that attitude, the best you'll aspire toward is king of the gutter. So, I repeat: Puerility with nonsense.

With that attitude, the best you'll aspire toward is king of the gutter. So, I repeat: Puerility with nonsense.

You speak far more nonsense than I do. You cling to your make-believe, lofty ideals, simultaneously accept their artificiality yet expouse their supposed benefits. You are a contradiction.

You speak far more nonsense than I do. You cling to your make-believe, lofty ideals, simultaneously accept their artificiality yet expouse their supposed benefits. You are a contradiction.

these bennifits of which you speak illude me as well. yes it might be possible to rise to some sort of dictatorship, provided one can surround themselves with a sufficient cadre of bully boys to back them up, but everyone still has to live at least part of their lives in the same resaulting world as the rest of us.

there is of course i suppose, the 'honor' of always being able to find where such a tyrant's grave is located by the direction in which peasants point when they make water in the field.

reality and nature, granted do nothing to prevent anyone from attempting anything, at least once, but they also do nothing to prevent their subsiquent eventual downfall. thousand year riches have a very real statistical tendency to last somewhere between six and twelve years, at the outside.

You speak far more nonsense than I do. You cling to your make-believe, lofty ideals, simultaneously accept their artificiality yet expouse their supposed benefits. You are a contradiction.
All things in life that are of value are artificial. Self-image, aesthetics, the human psyche, individualism, language; none of these are real. They are constructed to make life better.
As to "contradiction," yeah. That's the great thing about humans, we can be contradictions. We can love ourselves while throwing our lives away for the benefit of others. We can be hit men who feed stray kittens. We can cry over the suffering of our enemies, and imagine the idea of a "Just War" (actually waging one, well, that's tricky). Some times the contradictions are silly or frustrating, but they're what makes these 180 lb sacks of rotting meat and shit worth a passing thought.

Know what sort of organism isn't a contradiction? E. Coli. No depth or complexity there. Eat, eat, split in half. Carrots and sunflowers are remarkably self-same too.

All things in life that are of value are artificial. Self-image, aesthetics, the human psyche, individualism, language; none of these are real. They are constructed to make life better.
As to "contradiction," yeah. That's the great thing about humans, we can be contradictions. We can love ourselves while throwing our lives away for the benefit of others. We can be hit men who feed stray kittens. We can cry over the suffering of our enemies, and imagine the idea of a "Just War" (actually waging one, well, that's tricky). Some times the contradictions are silly or frustrating, but they're what makes these 180 lb sacks of rotting meat and shit worth a passing thought.

Know what sort of organism isn't a contradiction? E. Coli. No depth or complexity there. Eat, eat, split in half. Carrots and sunflowers are remarkably self-same too.

I'd rather be e coli, then, if it meant I'd be the anti-thesis of you.

As an individual, understanding the stupidity of altruism grants you the title of king of the species.

This...

I'd rather be e coli, then, if it meant I'd be the anti-thesis of you.

...and this show that you think being 'clever' in your own opinion is better than being intelligent in the opinion of others.

You could have reasonably argued that morality is arbitrary according to culture and that you act as a free agent in defining that culture and it's 'morality' but no, you'd rather act petulant and simply reject out of hand.

And sure, you're free to act that way but, ultimately, you're clearly lightweight.

This...



...and this show that you think being 'clever' in your own opinion is better than being intelligent in the opinion of others.

You could have reasonably argued that morality is arbitrary according to culture and that you act as a free agent in defining that culture and it's 'morality' but no, you'd rather act petulant and simply reject out of hand.

And sure, you're free to act that way but, ultimately, you're clearly lightweight.

Huh? Why would I argue for subjective morality if I hold that it's just as irrelevant as a notion of objective morality?

I reject morality. I do not believe it exists except in the minds of men. Arguing otherwise would be hypocritical.

I remember something in Full Metal Jacket about shooting kids being easier because they're slower, but I cannot find the exact quotation.

:(
Door Gunner: "Git some! Git some! Git some, yeah, yeah, yeah! Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC! You guys oughta do a story about me sometime!"
Private Joker: "Why should we do a story about you?"
Door Gunner: "'Cuz I'm so fuckin' good! I done got me 157 dead gooks killed. Plus 50 water buffalo too! Them's all confirmed!"
Private Joker: "Any women or children?"
Door Gunner: "Sometimes!"
Private Joker: "How can you shoot women or children?"
Door Gunner: "Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?"

Huh? Why would I argue for subjective morality if I hold that it's just as irrelevant as a notion of objective morality?

I reject morality. I do not believe it exists except in the minds of men. Arguing otherwise would be hypocritical.

Sure, I'm saying that you can argue that you're just a free agent in a culture, as an agent in that culture you simply, by being part of it, help define it, we're not all borgs.

Instead, you throw away meaningless sentences to, I don't know, because you think it's cool?

Sure, I'm saying that you can argue that you're just a free agent in a culture, as an agent in that culture you simply, by being part of it, help define it, we're not all borgs.

Instead, you throw away meaningless sentences to, I don't know, because you think it's cool?

I don't understand what you're implying. I regard myself as a free agent, yes, but I don't consider it important to define my culture. My lack of belief in morality != personally subjective morality. I am not a subjectivist, I am an amoralist.

I don't know what sentences you found meaningless, but if you list them perhaps I can clarify.

I'd rather be e coli, then, if it meant I'd be the anti-thesis of you.
Antithesis. One word; no hyphen.
And I've already got an archenemy, thanks.
Huh? Why would I argue for subjective morality if I hold that it's just as irrelevant as a notion of objective morality?

I reject morality. I do not believe it exists except in the minds of men. Arguing otherwise would be hypocritical.
Language only exists in the minds of men, so your mere presence on this forum is hypocritical.
See, I knew there had to be some complexity in you somewhere.

..but I don't consider it important to define my culture.

Regardless of whether you think it important, you do, simply by existing as part of it and interacting within it.

I would say you do have morals, when you buy things you don't say 'give me the fucking goods' and then throw money down, because you recognise that it makes your life more difficult.

As part of a culture we have those codes by which we live, which then result in a general agreement that acts such as stealing is detrimental to both the culture as a whole, stemming from the detrimental effects we observe on ourselves. You might not, or profess not to, but I'll guarantee you do.

One could call aspects of that code, arbitrary as it might be per culture, 'morals'.

...and you have them as well.

Now you might say they're just constructs of the mind but they're still there as a phenomenon.

I don't know what sentences you found meaningless, but if you list them perhaps I can clarify.

Post #38

Antithesis. One word; no hyphen.
And I've already got an archenemy, thanks.

Language only exists in the minds of men, so your mere presence on this forum is hypocritical.
See, I knew there had to be some complexity in you somewhere.

Morality and language have nothing in common. Try again.

Morality and language have nothing in common. Try again.

They do in the sense that they're constructs of the mind, and they do in terms of being means by which we interact in a society.

Don't be condescending if you don't understand the point.

Huh? Why would I argue for subjective morality if I hold that it's just as irrelevant as a notion of objective morality?

I reject morality. I do not believe it exists except in the minds of men. Arguing otherwise would be hypocritical.
I'll probably regret involving myself in this, but what the hell difference does it make whether or not morality is asocial construct? How is that supposed to make it any less "real" than if it were a rock or a tree?

Human civilization is "just" a social construct. Language, nationality, property, emotions, governments, all that stuff exists "only" in the human mind. And, you know, those things are as real as anything else in this world.

Morality and language have nothing in common. Try again.
Barringtonia said it first,
They do in the sense that they're constructs of the mind, and they do in terms of being means by which we interact in a society.

Don't be condescending if you don't understand the point.
Thank the moon that at least somebody gets it.