ClumsyMonkey.net

Posted: **1/20/2003, 9:50 pm**

It wouldn't be Star Trek if he didn't. I love Star Trek..........Darmak and Gilad at Tanagra was on today. I like that one.

Posted: **1/20/2003, 10:43 pm**

Narbus wrote: And another basic concept is the careful choosing of our variables. If you make the mistake of picking the wrong ones, or define the ones you pick improperly, your entire train of logic that follows is going to be erroneous.

Point taken. However, the variables in this argument seem to be everyday situations. Thus, the question is: can one man be one thing, and be the exact contradiction of it in the same moment? One cannot be both alive and dead. Nor can one be both tall and short. These are objective characteristics, and they cannot be interchanged.

Ah, but are not apples and oranges both fruits? So if we define A to be "fruits," than Apple = A and Orange = A. So Apple = Orange, given that we are talking about fruits. It all depends on perspective, and how you define that variable.

Apples and oranges are both classified as fruit. Let me use a more applicable example to the topic at hand. Suppose I am caucasian. I cannot be of a black race at the same time. Thus Caucasian= A, Black= B. A does not equal B. Granted, you can twist these premises to suit yourself and make your conclusion correct, however what Objectivism deals with is concrete situations. It deals with people, thus objectivly speaking, I cannot change my race. What is objective retains its objective characteristics, and that is the basis of Rand's definition of Objectivism.

Not true. Man can be thinking in some cases, and not thinking in others. Just because we choose once in our lives to think does not mean that we always do.

Thank you for reiterating my point that one can always choose. The difference between what you wrote and what I wrote lies in the fact that we always choose, whether consciously or subconsciously. Only when a choice is conscious does it become a part of human rationality. This is the type of choice that Objectivism deals with. A non-thinking choice is not equated with human reason.

Define rational. It was already tried, and didn't work.

Rational, according to Webster's dictionary is a. Having reason or the faculty of reasoning. Or in psychological terms, it is the investigation into the nature of the mind. Thus, it follows that REASON is defined as: The faculty of thinking; the intellectual power of understanding; the faculty which draws inferences from facts; the logical premise of an argument. Therefore, reason and rationality are human traits. In order to separate ourselves from animals, we must employ these cognitive faculties. I believe that your issue with these concepts lies in your misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of LOGIC as it pertains to Objectivism and reality. It is true that we technically cannot prove that Descartes and other non-existentialists are wrong, however it cannot be proven that they are right. All we can know is what we think (Cogito Ergo Zum), and what lies before us as object fact.

Narbus, I don't believe anyone has asked you specifically what your beliefs are as far as your applied philosophy on life. How do you live? It is one thing to talk, but actions DO speak louder than words.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 2:27 am**

NikitaTheIrishesqueSpy wrote:Point taken. However, the variables in this argument seem to be everyday situations. Thus, the question is: can one man be one thing, and be the exact contradiction of it in the same moment? One cannot be both alive and dead. Nor can one be both tall and short. These are objective characteristics, and they cannot be interchanged.

Obvious: I am tall (6'3) compared to my godson, who is currently ~2'. I am short compared to the Washington memorial. It all depends on your frame of reference.
The issue of alive or dead is a central one to our discussion, being one of the very few things in the world that are permanant, therefore it is often used as a foundation from which to build a code of morals.

Apples and oranges are both classified as fruit. Let me use a more applicable example to the topic at hand. Suppose I am caucasian. I cannot be of a black race at the same time. Thus Caucasian= A, Black= B. A does not equal B. Granted, you can twist these premises to suit yourself and make your conclusion correct, however what Objectivism deals with is concrete situations. It deals with people, thus objectivly speaking, I cannot change my race. What is objective retains its objective characteristics, and that is the basis of Rand's definition of Objectivism.

Again, you are playing with defintions. If we just change our perspective, we see that Caucasian = human, and black = human, and therefore caucasian = black, given nothing more than a different perspective. It all depends on what you're looking at. By observing, you become part of the system. It's unavoidable, in science and in life.

Thank you for reiterating my point that one can always choose. The difference between what you wrote and what I wrote lies in the fact that we always choose, whether consciously or subconsciously. Only when a choice is conscious does it become a part of human rationality. This is the type of choice that Objectivism deals with. A non-thinking choice is not equated with human reason.

Not true, again. I don't even think about the meaning of words when I am being spoken too, yet isn't understanding the rules and syntax of a language (english in particular) something that requires reason and intelligence? Basic math, driving a car, typing, operating a computer, there are a lot of things that require reason and intelligence that we don't even think about. In fact, the concept of trying to think out every single decision I make every day leads me to nothing but a world where I don't move at all for fear of sensory overload.
You are greatly underestimating the power of the human brain, here.

Rational, according to Webster's dictionary is a. Having reason or the faculty of reasoning. Or in psychological terms, it is the investigation into the nature of the mind. Thus, it follows that REASON is defined as: The faculty of thinking; the intellectual power of understanding; the faculty which draws inferences from facts; the logical premise of an argument. Therefore, reason and rationality are human traits. In order to separate ourselves from animals, we must employ these cognitive faculties. I believe that your issue with these concepts lies in your misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of LOGIC as it pertains to Objectivism and reality. It is true that we technically cannot prove that Descartes and other non-existentialists are wrong, however it cannot be proven that they are right. All we can know is what we think (Cogito Ergo Zum), and what lies before us as object fact.

So. Being rational is being a reasoning person, which means having intellectual powers of understanding. I agree, as you have attached no constraints, as was done earlier (that being rational means you have to think in only one way).
I do, however argue with your use of the term "object fact," for the reasons I show above. If you look at the situtation from nothing more than another angle, everything can change. Applies to fruit and life the same.
Does war fall under the category of murder, or do you see it as preventing more death from a tyrannical rule of a dictator? It fits in both categories. In the first, if you avoid it because it is murder, then you have the unfortunate side effect of a madman rising to power and causing great suffering and death. In the second, you kill people, but you also save lives and preserve greater freedom for all. And there are more ways of looking at it.
Which is right? All of them.

Why? Because they are all part of a great giant thing that we simply aren't equipped to totally understand. All we can do is look at the bits that we can handle.

When we do take the bits that we do understand, and make a judgement, we must all the while realize that we don't have all the facts. We must realize that as more facts become evident, we can change our judgement.

Narbus, I don't believe anyone has asked you specifically what your beliefs are as far as your applied philosophy on life. How do you live? It is one thing to talk, but actions DO speak louder than words.

I'm not really sure what you're looking for here, to be honest. If it helps, I try to reserve judgement when it's not necessary, and I try to be as open to change as I can, especially personal change. I'm only 22, and Nebraska is not the greatest place in the world to be exploring these ideas, so it's not the most fun I've ever had, but well.
My life is a work in progress, basically.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 8:26 am**

No. I am arguing that people believe different things to be moral, and that morality is reliant on perspective, so different people really do have different morals. There is no absolute. It is relative.

man, listen to me. that is impossible. seriously, you and matt sit there and talk like a pair of nobel prize winners, but the further we go into this discussion the more obvious your ignorance becomes.

the same thing cannot be right and wrong at the same time. it is impossible. it can only be one, or the other. this is simple metaphysics, man.

Alright. The child dies a slow, painful death from starvation. Did you know that you can survive over a week without eating anything? That's a very, very long week.

that is the choice of the child.

This is what's called a "logical fallacy." You are assuming there are only two options here for me to choose from. There are more. For example, there is the choice that we both are right, since morality is relative. Just because I have certain feelings on an issue doesn't mean the whole world has to live by those feelings. People can make their own decisions.

don't talk to me about logic. as you have repeatedly shown me in this conversation, you do not understand it.

there are only two choices here. either you are right, and slavery is wrong, or slavery is right, and you are wrong. you cannot both be right, because that would be a contradiction, which is illogical. i don't care if you "answered that in another post" because your answer was wrong. contradictions are illogical. this is an object fact. that you sit here and deny something as elementary as this is outright mind boggling.

Code: Select all

I'm color blind.  The color green isn't the same to me as it is to other people.  Eat it.  
And if you'd mind pointing out where I said I was a nihilist, I'd appreciate it, because I didn't.

a.no, you don't see the color green. that doesn't change the fact that it still looks the same to those of us who do. idiot. :roll:

b. you've been arguing nihilist philosophy, or some rude version of it which i like to refer to as "bullshitism", for the last 3 or 4 pages of this discussion.

Oh. OH OH OH. So, given a certain scenario, all people don't have the same rights. Look at that! Morality is dependant upon the situation, or as some would call it, relative. Go figure.

what the hell are you talking about? i never said it was absolutely always wrong to kill, i said it was absolutely always wrong to kill innocent people.

I have to go to work now, but in the meantime, go watch a movie called "Memento." It's a great example of how perception influences your reality.

we recommend texts by world famous philosophers for you to study, and you recommend a movie. i think that basically sums up the entire debate right there.

you're ignorant and you don't want to be educated. from now on, this discussion will be purely for my own amusement purposes.

Ah, but are not apples and oranges both fruits? So if we define A to be "fruits," than Apple = A and Orange = A. So Apple = Orange, given that we are talking about fruits. It all depends on perspective, and how you define that variable.

o man!

logical fallacy.

a. apples are a fruit
b. oranges are a fruit.
c. therefore apples are oranges.

watch this.

a. hitler was a human
b. narbus is a human
c. therefore, narbus is a nazi.

see?

damascussteel i'm really not going to reply to you because you are clearly so outside the realm of rational thought it's not even funny. therefore, your posts aren't amusing to me. you're just nuts.

and the kill one/millions scenario is very easy. you don't kill anybody. the person with the disease is not doing anything to the people who could contract it and die. he is not responsible for the catching of his disease and anyone else it may kill. if he does not with to die, the morally, you do not have the right to take his life. i don't care where you place your "value" becaue your value is wrong. what you believe about morality is wrong.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 8:41 am**

ok, i lied. i found something in here that really made me laugh.

Well, at least you got the point

no, you missed it. i repeat, for the one zillionith time, your beliefs do not define reality. if i believe that there is a new car on my driveway, will one appear? even if i hallucinate that it's there, will it be there? i know you're probably going to say "yes, to you", but i dont' care about what's going on in my crazy mind. i want to know if other people are going to see me cruising around in a new car or if i'm going to be walking.

And I respond "Says who?"

what? correct me if i'm wrong, but did you just ask me to prove to you that the KKK are not superior to black people?

ok, since you insist, why don't you take a look at any professional sport, wherein you'll find hundreds of black athletes perfoming on or above the level of their white team mates. we also have black scientists, doctors, writers, artists, muscians etc.

i can't believe you just asked that. uh, duh. :roll:

Because you're on one side or the other. If you're in the US or Afghanistan, one side it right, the other is wrong.

contradiction. paradoxes don't exist in reality so you'll need to come up with something that does. :lol:

. and i don't see how the soil you were born on has anything to do with innocent lives being lost. must be nice to be so sheltered as you to be able to say "well who cares about the 3000 innocent afghani that died, because i live on this patch of dirt so now it's ok." must be wierd to think that the preceding was a logical train of thought.

I ask again, where are you getting this list of whats right and whats wrong? Are you basing it on your own values?

reality. i live there.

Yes they are, TO THEM! How many times can I say this? If you are a southern slave owner, blacks are like farm animals, if you're someone like me, they are equals.

so what, are southern slave owners superior to all of us, too? what magically makes blacks inferior to just them? if i could own slaves today, would i magically become superior to the race of my slave?

now you've really gone off the deep end. basically, you're just sort-of rascist, is that what i am to assume? you just said to me that only "some" white people are superior to black people, the slave owners of the deep south, o well and the KKK i guess. nice.

Are you saying if Hitler had won, he'd be walking around talking about how wrong he was?

no, because as i have stated one hundered times over, hitlers beliefs on the right/wrongness of his actions have no effect on the fact that they are objectively wrong. :roll:

No, because as I said, I make my own moral decisions. Society simple enforces the majority rule. And the majority is right by default

ok dude, before it was just a little bit of bullshitting but i'm really starting to think you're some kind of elitist. if the majority is always right then the minority is always wrong. hey, that's an absolute! furthermore, you just said you don't agree with the concept of minority rights in any way shape or form.

*rolls his eyes*

That IS the argument. Everyone believes their actions are right, no one does something thinking "This is wrong, but I'm doing it anyway, just cause" They say "This is wrong, but it's for a better good" or "This is right"

so? beliefs are NOTHING. they're just what you think about an issue. that doesn't change shit. if i believe with all my heart that i am superman and can fly, and i jump of a building, I WILL FALL AND DIE. holy crap, this is not rocket science here, skippy. :lol:

Posted: **1/21/2003, 10:59 am**

So, Narbus, after reading your response to Nikita twice, i have to ask:

is it your position that an object [ie an apple] can be one thing and it's opposite at the same time? Is it your position that my skin can be both black and white at once? Is it your postition that objectivity is not real?

And furthermore, do you believe your position to be rational?

as Nikita said, we cannot technically prove that you are wrong, just the same as you cannot prove that you are right.

However, I would like to take this time to raise my personal issues with your philosophy.

By saying there is no morality, or rather, that it is different to different people, you are giving them a free pass to take whatever action they choose.

suppose a person suscribes to the moral code "baby killing". to him, strangling helpless babies is a way to practice his beliefs. He is also a realitivist, like you, so he believes he is right in taking this action. since there is no morality, who is to say he is wrong? nobody. because to him, his action is right, and as we all know, there is no such thing as objective reality, and everyone's beliefs and opinions must be respected, right? therefore he should be permitted to continue strangling babies until his heart is content.

now look at that same situation from my point of view.

a person has been strangling babies. when confronted about this heinous act, he has defended himself by saying he believes morality is realitive, and to him, babies are meant to be strangled. objectivley, we can see that this is not a rational choice and that his action violates the rights of the baby. therefore, the individual has commitied an evil act and must face the full concequences of his decision.

i do see things in terms of right and wrong, black and white. i do make blanket statements like "murder is wrong" because the moral value of an action is not created by the circumstances that surround or provoke that action.

my convictions do not depend on circumstance. for some reason, that comforts me.

this discussion is over. you cannot refute aristotle, and i cannot prove you wrong. you wish to deny existence, and i can't stop you.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:07 pm**

xchrisx wrote:
Well, at least you got the point

no, you missed it. i repeat, for the one zillionith time, your beliefs do not define reality. if i believe that there is a new car on my driveway, will one appear? even if i hallucinate that it's there, will it be there? i know you're probably going to say "yes, to you", but i dont' care about what's going on in my crazy mind. i want to know if other people are going to see me cruising around in a new car or if i'm going to be walking.[/b]

And I'll say it again, you've done nothing but give your beliefs to define reality. When you give me some other neutral morality that is in no way dependent on a person's beliefs, you'll have some proof.

what? correct me if i'm wrong, but did you just ask me to prove to you that the KKK are not superior to black people?

Yah, and you didn't. You said, oh and I quote........

objectively, the answer is no. their beliefs may be relative, but they are still incorrect.

You can see how I'm not convinced, "No, they're wrong" isn't ironclad proof. Why are they incorrect, because you believe them to be equal?

ok, since you insist, why don't you take a look at any professional sport, wherein you'll find hundreds of black athletes perfoming on or above the level of their white team mates. we also have black scientists, doctors, writers, artists, muscians etc.

You know, I can come up with pieces about how inferior blacks are. Based on intelligence, economy and what not. Some KKK guy spouting out about how they have smaller brains, to look at Africa and so on. Why am I supposed to believe they are superior just because they can show intelligence? I didn't say prove they were human, I said prove they weren't inferior.

i can't believe you just asked that. uh, duh.

You haven't made any point yet, so I have to ask that.

contradiction. paradoxes don't exist in reality so you'll need to come up with something that does. . and i don't see how the soil you were born on has anything to do with innocent lives being lost.

It's called nationalism you twit, are you trying to tell me that EVERYONE in the entire world was completely devastated? No, in fact, some people were damn glad. And as to the attack againest Afghanistan, some people, including some people here, were very glad "That we killed those ragheads"
Whether they were innocent or not.

must be nice to be so sheltered as you to be able to say "well who cares about the 3000 innocent afghani that died, because i live on this patch of dirt so now it's ok."

So, you're crushed emotionally by every person who dies on the earth? Regardless of who they are, where they live, or whether you know them or not? You'll cry the same amount if it's some rapist in Zanzibar gets killed by his victim, or if your mother dies? To you it's all the same? Well excuse me, but I do place different values on human lives, those close to me are worth more to me.

must be wierd to think that the preceding was a logical train of thought.

Yea, must be, me placing different values on lives like everyone else does, funny that.

reality. i live there.

Ok, show me the list. And tell me where you got it, cause I KNOW you didn't make it up in your own mind, or based it on society, right? This list of right and wrong came directly from god right? Your morals are in no way based on society, right?

so what, are southern slave owners superior to all of us, too? what magically makes blacks inferior to just them? if i could own slaves today, would i magically become superior to the race of my slave?

*sigh* in your mind yes, to them you're scum. It's all relative, and no one is right. To "you" (the southern) being superior is simply being white and them being black. To "them" (your slaves) being superior consists of being kind and equal regardless of race. Since neither is superior (right?) neither view is more or less right than the other.

now you've really gone off the deep end. basically, you're just sort-of rascist, is that what i am to assume?

Basically, you're wrong, I'm not

you just said to me that only "some" white people are superior to black people, the slave owners of the deep south, o well and the KKK i guess. nice.

No, I said some white people know they are, and we know differently. Since neither of us have nothing more than our own opinions, both are indeed right. I can't tell them they're wrong, because I don't know, hell maybe blacks are inferior, but I know they are, they know they aren't. It's our word againest theirs.

no, because as i have stated one hundered times over, hitlers beliefs on the right/wrongness of his actions have no effect on the fact that they are objectively wrong.

And you've still yet to show me this moral objectivity, all you've given me is your beliefs without backing them up at all. "He's wrong because the objective morals say he is" doesn't cut it.

ok dude, before it was just a little bit of bullshitting but i'm really starting to think you're some kind of elitist. if the majority is always right then the minority is always wrong. hey, that's an absolute! furthermore, you just said you don't agree with the concept of minority rights in any way shape or form.

No, if the majority want to let the minorty have their rights, they can. I'll give you an example...

I kill you, because I hate you (I don't, example here) I think I was right. You were really annoying and your life didn't mean that much to me. The rest of the world thinks I'm wrong. Now they are going to act on it. Regardless of whether I think I'm right or not, the majority is going for the greater good.

[b]so? beliefs are NOTHING. they're just what you think about an issue. that doesn't change shit. if i believe with all my heart that i am superman and can fly, and i jump of a building, I WILL FALL AND DIE. holy crap, this is not rocket science here, skippy.

There's a difference between facts and beliefs :roll:

as was said a few pages ago. 2 + 2 does not equal 56, but a man stealing to feed his starving family is a different story. "Blacks are equal becuase I can't fly" is funny :lol:

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:17 pm**

xchrisx wrote:the same thing cannot be right and wrong at the same time. it is impossible. it can only be one, or the other. this is simple metaphysics, man.[/b]

Why? I think killing hitler was right, Hitler probably thought it was wrong.

there are only two choices here. either you are right, and slavery is wrong, or slavery is right, and you are wrong. you cannot both be right, because that would be a contradiction, which is illogical. i don't care if you "answered that in another post" because your answer was wrong. contradictions are illogical. this is an object fact. that you sit here and deny something as elementary as this is outright mind boggling.

This is what we're trying to explain to you, not everything is a fact, some thing's are opinions, and yes, right and wrong are opinions.

you're ignorant and you don't want to be educated. from now on, this discussion will be purely for my own amusement purposes.

"You don't agre with me and refuse to accept my beliefs, and since I know know I can't change you, I'm going to try and mock you"

:roll:

logical fallacy.

a. apples are a fruit
b. oranges are a fruit.
c. therefore apples are oranges.

watch this.

a. hitler was a human
b. narbus is a human
c. therefore, narbus is a nazi.

see?

Um, no?

A hitler was a human
B Narbus us a human
C hitler is narbus

both are human, given the variables you're looking at.

damascussteel i'm really not going to reply to you because you are clearly so outside the realm of rational thought it's not even funny. therefore, your posts aren't amusing to me. you're just nuts.

As in, I have my own morals and refuse to accept yours, therefore I'm wrong? It's people like you that are outside the realm of rational thought. Trying to pawn off right and wrong as fact.

i don't care where you place your "value" becaue your value is wrong. what you believe about morality is wrong.

This is what I find laughable, you can't accept the fact that not everyone lives with the same values you do, so they have be wrong, because you have to be right. The simple fact is, you aren't. You've yet to prove your morals are superior to ours. I'm still waiting on it.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:25 pm**

you completely ignored the bulk of my post to you. any reason?

you keep getting what people believe confused with what is. i for one, am tired of repeating myself.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:29 pm**

YourJesus wrote:is it your position that an object [ie an apple] can be one thing and it's opposite at the same time? Is it your position that my skin can be both black and white at once? Is it your postition that objectivity is not real?[/b]

They aren't the opposite, they are the same. Fruit, or human. It simply depends on what aspects you're looking at. Not all apples are the same, some a very different from each other. There are macintosh, gala, fuji, granny smith, red delicious and so on. Yet you grouped them all together as "apples" he simply grouped them together as "fruit"

By saying there is no morality, or rather, that it is different to different people, you are giving them a free pass to take whatever action they choose.

And society can take whatever action it takes in response. To say we can't take whatever action we choose implies that we follow orders. That we really don't believe in what we're doing, but do it because we have to. I'd like to think I believe murder is wrong because I think it is, not because it's ordered to be.

suppose a person suscribes to the moral code "baby killing". to him, strangling helpless babies is a way to practice his beliefs. He is also a realitivist, like you, so he believes he is right in taking this action. since there is no morality, who is to say he is wrong? nobody. because to him, his action is right, and as we all know, there is no such thing as objective reality, and everyone's beliefs and opinions must be respected, right? therefore he should be permitted to continue strangling babies until his heart is content.

And on the flip side of the coin, we (society) should be allowed to punish him. Because we view baby strangling as wrong, and there are more of us.

a person has been strangling babies. when confronted about this heinous act, he has defended himself by saying he believes morality is realitive, and to him, babies are meant to be strangled. objectivley, we can see that this is not a rational choice and that his action violates the rights of the baby. therefore, the individual has commitied an evil act and must face the full concequences of his decision.

And when you say "objective morality", I say "majority morality" You cannot look at right and wrong objectively, simply because you cannot claim your values are right for everyone, unless of course you think you're superior to everyone else, which I don't think you do.

i do see things in terms of right and wrong, black and white. i do make blanket statements like "murder is wrong" because the moral value of an action is not created by the circumstances that surround or provoke that action.

ok, is stealing wrong?

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:30 pm**

xchrisx wrote:you completely ignored the bulk of my post to you. any reason?

you keep getting what people believe confused with what is. i for one, am tired of repeating myself.

I quoted everything in your post

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:31 pm**

of course stealing is wrong.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:32 pm**

xchrisx wrote:of course stealing is wrong.

I'm going to die of starvation in the woods, I come across a locked storehouse full of food. No one is around, it's a summer home. Do I stay out and die? Or do I break in and eat something?

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:34 pm**

stay out, and die. you do not have the right, no matter what your circumstance, to rob somebody else.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:35 pm**

damacus. read my most recent post to narbus.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:36 pm**

xchrisx wrote:stay out, and die. you do not have the right, no matter what your circumstance, to rob somebody else.

Are you aware most of the world disagrees with you?

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:36 pm**

YourJesus wrote:damacus. read my most recent post to narbus.

I did, and responded to a few points in it

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:45 pm**

DamascusSteel wrote:And I'll say it again, you've done nothing but give your beliefs to define reality. When you give me some other neutral morality that is in no way dependent on a person's beliefs, you'll have some proof.

go outside and look around and you'll see the proof of what i am talking about. reality cannot be modified by your thoughts. go ahead and try it for yourself. believe you have a new car on the driveway of your place and see what happens.

You know, I can come up with pieces about how inferior blacks are. Based on intelligence, economy and what not. Some KKK guy spouting out about how they have smaller brains, to look at Africa and so on. Why am I supposed to believe they are superior just because they can show intelligence? I didn't say prove they were human, I said prove they weren't inferior.

are you seriously arguing that white people are superior to blacks? jesus man. take a look around. anything and everything white people do these days, black people can do at least as well and sometimes even better. i cannot believe you are sersiously trying to imply there is any credible evidence to the contrary.

this is object fact. it is not refutable, it is not debatable. the very fact that you try to argue that people of a certain skin tone are superior to those of a different skin tone is preposterous.

It's called nationalism you twit, are you trying to tell me that EVERYONE in the entire world was completely devastated? No, in fact, some people were damn glad. And as to the attack againest Afghanistan, some people, including some people here, were very glad "That we killed those ragheads"
Whether they were innocent or not.

SO FUCKING WHAT? for the millionith fucking time, you twit, your beliefs don't shape reality. i'm not talking about how people "felt" about the killings, because i don't give a shit. all i'm pointing out is that exactly the same thing happened to both groups of people.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, in the realm of logical and reasonable thought, as well as in reality, for two things to be opposites. this is the first rule of metaphysics, a philisophy invented by aristotle that has stood for thousands of years.

you expect me to believe that a person who has never studied aristotle, or any other philosophy for that matter [ that's you ] can refute metaphysics in 10 minutes on a messageboard?

by repeadately denying what is obvious and object fact you have demonstrated to me that you are either trolling or incredibly unreasonable. therefore, i'm done with you. furthemore, the rascist overtones of this discussion are souring it for me.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:45 pm**

"Are you aware most of the world disagrees with you?"

i could give a shit. most of the world is wrong. i am right. you said so yourself.

Posted: **1/21/2003, 3:54 pm**

xchrisx wrote:go outside and look around and you'll see the proof of what i am talking about. reality cannot be modified by your thoughts. go ahead and try it for yourself. believe you have a new car on the driveway of your place and see what happens.

But my opinions can be modified, can they not? Right and wrong are opinions.

are you seriously arguing that white people are superior to blacks? jesus man. take a look around. anything and everything white people do these days, black people can do at least as well and sometimes even better. i cannot believe you are sersiously trying to imply there is any credible evidence to the contrary.[/b]

No, I'm not telling you they, I'm telling you people have proof to the contrary. They believe, based on their facts, that they are.

this is object fact. it is not refutable, it is not debatable. the very fact that you try to argue that people of a certain skin tone are superior to those of a different skin tone is preposterous.

It's fact because you say it is, not because it really is

SO FUCKING WHAT? for the millionith fucking time, you twit, your beliefs don't shape reality. i'm not talking about how people "felt" about the killings, because i don't give a shit. all i'm pointing out is that exactly the same thing happened to both groups of people.

So wait, it doessn't matter if they think it's right or wrong, because you know its wrong, therefore everyone is wrong? Your morals don't apply to everyone.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, in the realm of logical and reasonable thought, as well as in reality, for two things to be opposites. this is the first rule of metaphysics, a philisophy invented by aristotle that has stood for thousands of years.

Wait, invented? Like before him it didn't exist? Again, this is not math, these are opinions. Aristotle never went into opinions

you expect me to believe that a person who has never studied aristotle, or any other philosophy for that matter [ that's you ] can refute metaphysics in 10 minutes on a messageboard?

How do you know I never took philosophy? Because I don't agree with you?

[b]by repeadately denying what is obvious and object fact you have demonstrated to me that you are either trolling or incredibly unreasonable. therefore, i'm done with you. furthemore, the rascist overtones of this discussion are souring it for me.

You're funny. Because I refuse to accept your morals, I have to be illogical. even though, and I'll say it again on bold for you

YOU'VE GIVEN ME NO PROOF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT YOUR MORALS ARE ANY MORE SUPERIOR THAN ANYONE ELSE'S, ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS STATE YOUR OPINION AS FACT.

You show me some proof, ANY proof, that what you think is right and wrong is indeed right and wrong for all of mankind, I'll believe you. Stop trying to tell me that because you cannot change certain things that you cannot change your beliefs.

Just because I cannot make a car appear in my driveway does not mean your morals are right.

ClumsyMonkey.net

Stripped