learn to read, 'tard. as for your unprovoked hostility, get laid or something.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
What makes someone a bad person?
- Thread starter Renz Envy
- Start date
learn to read, 'tard. as for your unprovoked hostility, get laid or something.
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
panic in paradise
Bluelighter
99.99999 % true.
that is until they decide to hear about their, issue...lol
oh man
but i guess if they are die-hard, they aint gonna hear shit.
its like square-dancing.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
l2r said:
Do either of you want this thread to remain open? Act like it...
ebola
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
I never said this was a moral decision and we're clearly working from different numbers. From the western standard the earth can support around 1-2 billion people. By western standards. that's to many fucking people.
And to choose theoretically I guess a good system would be to look at the land mass percentages vs humans on each continent and adjust accordingly with a random death lottery. throwing in the human sustaining production value of each as well as excluding appropriate amounts of nature.
for the promise example it was a direct retort to L2R, all they had to do was polish their example. But I do suppose I should revise it to a fundie extremist surrounded by fundie extremists who felt the same way.
On what basis is harming things bad? Also I'd like (you)to note the use of I'd like specifically because this is the basis of subjective morality.
Morality is a social construct that operates of off of abstracted principles gained by subjective observations by humans based on a variety of things; from interpretations of syphilis induced hallucinations to the fact that steeping on a lego hurts. Subjective "morality" as a sliding scale judgment exists from society but not a real thing nor an objective thing.
In all truth the only people I have every conversed with about objective morality that have not conceded within a few moments are the theists who say God(s) provides objective morals.
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
And thus the separation. Your source was developed by mechanical engineers. And mine is by Ecologist and Agronomist David Pimentel of Cornell University whose estimates are between 1-2 billion .
Pimentel, David, "How many people can the Earth support?", Population Press, March/April 1999 (Vol. 5, No. 3), the Pop!ulation Coalition.
It's an old (small) number but I personally like having net gain rather than floating at net 0
I'm all for socio-economic reform before we start killing people of course, but I don't think most people will be able to take set backs like we need; not that they would prefer playing worldwide Russian roulette either though.
I'd apologize to any fundamental extremists but not until they stop being fundamental extremists. But i don't see how I'm being dismissive, I'd be perfectly okay addressing L2Rs idea of objective morality if they could produce anything relevant to discuss.
modern buddha
Bluelighter
No one is a "bad" person. That would be like calling a tree bad just because its limbs were lanky and miserable.
We're all different and no source of malicious intent or positive-turned-negative intent could turn us into a "bad" person.
We're all different and no source of malicious intent or positive-turned-negative intent could turn us into a "bad" person.
Need4speed
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2011
- Messages
- 440
malicious intent as post number 4 or 5 said
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
I read the whole thing and the link which is why I said.
your article as stated
One crop farming is bad, it yields more, but it depletes soil, that's why you're supposed to rotate diverse crops. or else on top of the pesticides and soil treatments. As well as fertilizers, whose transport and use posions watersheds. ect.
probably would also advocate GMO's which is where it really degenerates into whether or not you want to eat that crap.
But this is an argument for CE&P or science. Feel free to start a thread and we can continue.
Last edited:
the unit i referred to was a long time ago, and i tend to forget my done units since i am doing this degree in three straight years without a single day's break (on top of working and other pressing responsibilities). this is why i got it wrong in my first post in this thread, i reverted to my previous understanding.
there are better and more convincing arguments about objective morality, but off the top of my head...
it is intrinsically wrong to kill a person, even if no one knows them, no one will miss them, and no one knows you did it. you deny that person their future, and all of their interests therein. it doesn't matter that one day the human species will become extinct, this does not affect the wrongness of the action, which does not fall in the judgement of any deity or person. it comes from the detriment and injustice it produces in society, as well as the already mentioned interests of the individuals involved.
You asked why is harming someone bad.
Irrespective of how much time we, as a species are here, we are here now and are responsible for our time here. This is also irrespective of any man-made religious or political construct. Whenever there is a group of people, what they put in is what they get out. We are genetically designed to survive, so in order to act to the detriment of the group you are in, you are working to the detriment of your own survival, and the survival of everyone. If you can arbitrarily harm or kill anyone, anyone can be arbitrarily harmed or killed and the group would not be able to function.
The examples you noted alluded to instances of competing interests. When it comes to complex social relations, it is subjective as to right and wrong. However, in broader examples, there is indeed an objective morality to be found. When it comes to putting a price on a life, it simply can't be done. It isn't a matter of 2 lives is greater than 1. Such rationalities are the kind which lead to things like genocide.
Politically, i agree with machiavelli in that people get away with what their power allows them to. However, this doesn't mean that it is right. After all, when has reality and right been so aligned?
edit: apologies for my crappy mood yesterday. i had a headache all day, and am tiring of many of the conditions i'm living in these two months overseas. besides, the organ kidnap example essentially encompasses everything in this post anyway.
there are better and more convincing arguments about objective morality, but off the top of my head...
it is intrinsically wrong to kill a person, even if no one knows them, no one will miss them, and no one knows you did it. you deny that person their future, and all of their interests therein. it doesn't matter that one day the human species will become extinct, this does not affect the wrongness of the action, which does not fall in the judgement of any deity or person. it comes from the detriment and injustice it produces in society, as well as the already mentioned interests of the individuals involved.
You asked why is harming someone bad.
Irrespective of how much time we, as a species are here, we are here now and are responsible for our time here. This is also irrespective of any man-made religious or political construct. Whenever there is a group of people, what they put in is what they get out. We are genetically designed to survive, so in order to act to the detriment of the group you are in, you are working to the detriment of your own survival, and the survival of everyone. If you can arbitrarily harm or kill anyone, anyone can be arbitrarily harmed or killed and the group would not be able to function.
The examples you noted alluded to instances of competing interests. When it comes to complex social relations, it is subjective as to right and wrong. However, in broader examples, there is indeed an objective morality to be found. When it comes to putting a price on a life, it simply can't be done. It isn't a matter of 2 lives is greater than 1. Such rationalities are the kind which lead to things like genocide.
Politically, i agree with machiavelli in that people get away with what their power allows them to. However, this doesn't mean that it is right. After all, when has reality and right been so aligned?
edit: apologies for my crappy mood yesterday. i had a headache all day, and am tiring of many of the conditions i'm living in these two months overseas. besides, the organ kidnap example essentially encompasses everything in this post anyway.
Last edited:
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
I just lost my whole reply, so I'm just going to summarize.
Welcome to Portland, where you will get in more trouble defending yourself from being gang raped, then the 5 guys who raped you.
intrinsic:belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing. intrinsic objective: measurable, absolute, indefinite (altruistic). I was related once a "moral" argument from a ethics professor; the premise of which was there is a train going down some tracks and unless you push another man off of this over looking cliff, the train is going to derail. You can't throw yourself off and neither can he, you an choose to push him off and kill him or to let all of the people on the train die. By the definite killing is immoral code throwing this man of the cliff regardless of saving all the people on the trains lives is an immoral decision.
This is the system design that I find prerogative. Kind of like communism, yeah it would work if everyone abided by it. But you throw a wild car like me in there and thing start to conflict. Say I started a group of anti-klan vigilantes. By most peoples standards of morality this would be wrong. Tracking down and killing men and women for their beliefs. Yet you enter the realm of "moral" conflict, is it moral to continue letting them operate under hateful (possibly homicidal) guises? Yes, you can argue for detainment, but from my subjective point of view detainment is more immoral (sometimes) then killing deviants. Per-se we have a documented violent rapist who has documented irrefutable evidence of their crimes who has proven time over that they do not plan to reform. Keeping them in prison at the expense of their victims as well as denying them human rights ect. is to me more immoral and they should be executed. this over arches to other people who seek to be detriments to society as well.
Everyone has off days, what part of china are you in?
there's reason i would not live in america (unless i became stupidly rich)
This example is similar to the organ donor one i noted. I agree it would be wrong to kill one to save two (or even more).
In the case of your haters, the clan, they can believe what they want as long as their actions do not directly harm others. Rapists who cannot control their compulsions are ill, and their behavioural lack of control should be subject to medical assistance, rather than punishment.
but even these two examples are not objective, they are my opinion. they aren't as broad as the minority of actions covered by the examples i have been using, stuff which alludes to a price of a life.
Hefei, Anhui Province (a little west of Shanghai). It's where the inlaws live.
Just a note: i casually browse bluelight and post as such. i never intended to get in depth here, just note things which spring to mind (hence my initial mistake). I use this place as somewhere to "downtime". i haven't been serious here since i was snr mod, that is more than a few years ago now. i really don't have the energy or inclination to "debate" anymore. it really doesn't matter that much.
happy new year
(chinese liquor rules :D)
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
Hefei, Anhui Province (a little west of Shanghai). It's where the inlaws live.
Just a note: i casually browse bluelight and post as such. i never intended to get in depth here, just note things which spring to mind (hence my initial mistake). I use this place as somewhere to "downtime". i haven't been serious here since i was snr mod, that is more than a few years ago now. i really don't have the energy or inclination to "debate" anymore. it really doesn't matter that much.
happy new year
psh save the liquor money, buy steam buns.