Krest Omnithread

A Free And Independent Scotland.

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Mir@k » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:31 pm

karauma wrote:I like how most of this thread is just Mir and Guardian posting really short messages. :O

Sup
Image
DeviantArt | Tumblr | Twitter

"Bang and Abscond"
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Krest » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:05 pm

@BR

List the ironies YOU see and I will deal with them. Don't just tell someone to fix the discrepancies that they, themselves, haven't noticed. If someone can't see those things, then YOU need to show them what they are.

--

1) The morality we have been using is based on right and wrong, yes, but subjective ethics have evolved beyond dualism. Since ethics is meant to be the study of morality, then there MUST be some kind of morality that exists beyond right and wrong.

2) Situational ethics studies the various factors in a situation. It states that the end may justify the means, in terms of consequence, and that the ethics of a situation can be decided by the agape resulting from its factors. Situational ethics is a step towards ethics without right or wrong, due to its contrast against absolutism.

3) In order to consider all factors in a situation - including the sense of ethics of each individual - a process must exist to help in generating a conclusion (in other words, a decision as to what should be done in response to that situation after considering all factors).

4) Two situations which are exactly the same should generate the same conclusion. This conclusion, thus, would be absolute per that situation. However, there is still the chance that there would be different conclusions for each. This problem is what I call situational absolutism. This invalidates the conclusion reached, making said conclusion "unethical".

---

1) The secret to creating a non-dualistic morality may lie in the studying of the cause and effect of various situations.

2) By doing this, we can create conclusions based on those consequences (effects).

3) Since we wish for the conclusions to be free from absolutism, they must not be based on the positivity or negativity of consequences.

4) The "process" we use for creating said conclusions must be free from the problem known as situational absolutism.

5) Non-dualistic morality, in conclusion, must not only be free from absolutism, but must also not contradict itself.

I don't see how much plainer I can make this. I do not know why my "heart" causes me to take actions that have nothing to do with absolutes of right and wrong. I just base those actions on the effect I wish to see from the cause. But this is irrelevant, seeing as we're not judging me - we're judging the situation and each individual in response to the situation. An individual's sense of ethics is just a factor - it isn't the situation's core.
Sleep With Neil Patrick Harris
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:29 am
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Birdofterror » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:22 pm

krest pls
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid."

The Chronometal Wars, a fan-fiction taking place in the PPGD Universe. Catastrophe is the only certainty.
Bird oft Error
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:05 am
Location: You see where I am.
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Mir@k » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:24 pm

:U
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Birdofterror » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:38 pm

I mean, when I actually read the points you make it makes enough sense, Krest, but your entire post is just bogged down with...

With bad stuff. I mean... come on.

Krest pls.
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid."

The Chronometal Wars, a fan-fiction taking place in the PPGD Universe. Catastrophe is the only certainty.
Bird oft Error
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:05 am
Location: You see where I am.
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Krest » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:39 pm

*sigh*

See, here I was hoping that playing that game would make you all able to discuss philosophy. I guess I was wrong. Well, time to do what you all want me to do here!

Image
Sleep With Neil Patrick Harris
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:29 am
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Mir@k » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:55 pm

See you space cowboy..
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Birdofterror » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:00 pm

I was going to make a big post, but had a lot of trouble narrowing it down to a single theme.

A gist of what I was going to say was if you want to talk philosophy with people, you should probably keep an open mind. You cant just sigh and brush off all comments when someone is confused. Try just explaining your thoughts in a different way. Staying calm is probably the most overpowered thing anyone can do on a forum.
Mir@k wrote:See you space cowboy..
Bang
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid."

The Chronometal Wars, a fan-fiction taking place in the PPGD Universe. Catastrophe is the only certainty.
Bird oft Error
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:05 am
Location: You see where I am.
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Krest » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:07 pm

Well, seeing as I'm confused by every single word you people say and manage to generate a response anyway, meh. I already said I can't simplify things any more than that - especially when no one lists the exact things that confuse them. 0.0
Sleep With Neil Patrick Harris
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:29 am
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Mir@k » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:07 pm

Honest of all people i feel indifferent about this
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Birdofterror » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:15 pm

Well I'm not talking about any single specific circumstance, just a general rule of thumb if nothing else. Just stay calm and post with a level head and neutral expression. I'm trying to help prevent general animosity when you post. I mean, all of these "Krest Threads" are born of little more than everyone misunderstanding what you're saying and you misunderstanding what they're saying.

It's like a giant tornado of fuck that feeds off of itself.
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid."

The Chronometal Wars, a fan-fiction taking place in the PPGD Universe. Catastrophe is the only certainty.
Bird oft Error
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:05 am
Location: You see where I am.
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Krest » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:28 pm

Birdofterror wrote:It's like a giant tornado of fuck that feeds off of itself.
Sleep With Neil Patrick Harris
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:29 am
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Mir@k » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:51 pm

I'd piss on this thread if it wasn't alredy soaked in a much fouler substance heh
Image
DeviantArt | Tumblr | Twitter

"Bang and Abscond"
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Exodis » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:53 pm

Battery acid?
Hail to the Savior
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2213
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 11:47 pm
Location: City of Angels
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Mir@k » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:57 pm

Let's go with that
Image
DeviantArt | Tumblr | Twitter

"Bang and Abscond"
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby The Mad Doctor » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:57 pm

I thought it was Nuclear waste.
Image
Awaken child and embrace the glory of your jimmies. Know that we are the triune, the eternal will of rustling, and that you are created to serve us.
Shhh no tears only nightmares now
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2102
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:31 pm
Location: Walking the path of The Great Journey
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Mir@k » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:01 am

Well I said much fouler not the most foul. Battery acid is much fouler than human urine.
Image
DeviantArt | Tumblr | Twitter

"Bang and Abscond"
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Female

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Q.U. » Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:36 am

Ok, ok, I'll bite.

@BR

List the ironies YOU see and I will deal with them. Don't just tell someone to fix the discrepancies that they, themselves, haven't noticed. If someone can't see those things, then YOU need to show them what they are.


He asked you to list the levels of irony you can find in your post. He already knows them all, because he knows his irony. He wants to see you find it on your own too.

1) The morality we have been using is based on right and wrong, yes, but subjective ethics have evolved beyond dualism. Since ethics is meant to be the study of morality, then there MUST be some kind of morality that exists beyond right and wrong.

That's a given. I don't think anybody who's over 16 years of age doesn't realise that there can be a non-dual morality.

2) Situational ethics studies the various factors in a situation. It states that the end may justify the means, in terms of consequence, and that the ethics of a situation can be decided by the agape resulting from its factors. Situational ethics is a step towards ethics without right or wrong, due to its contrast against absolutism.

That's also obvious to anyone who has ever seen or been in a situation that wasn't morally obvious. Same as the whole old chestnut of: "is killing people okay? - No", "what if you could kill Hitler before he kills thousands?" etc.

3) In order to consider all factors in a situation - including the sense of ethics of each individual - a process must exist to help in generating a conclusion (in other words, a decision as to what should be done in response to that situation after considering all factors).

Usually done instinctively. The core of our social morality is hard-wired genetically, then the rest is learned through social contact.

4) Two situations which are exactly the same should generate the same conclusion. This conclusion, thus, would be absolute per that situation. However, there is still the chance that there would be different conclusions for each. This problem is what I call situational absolutism. This invalidates the conclusion reached, making said conclusion "unethical".

Both conclusions are incorrect. Remember to take subjectivity into account. Every person will have a "correct" solution to a situation, and these are allowed to vary same as our moral codes vary from person to person. Thus, your idea of there being an absolute is false, for any situation, so long as you take into account more than one person's moral view of it. Unless you think you could find a statistically most accurate solution that would fit closest to the moral solution for the majority of people. Which is bullshit, because morality cannot be bent like that, it's not maths.
And don't even get me started on the fact that the "level of correctness" may be uncertain for every single person, as moral dilemmas tend to make people take the best solution that is easy to achieve, rather than the best solution they can think of. And even the best solution they can think of may still not be the best solution they could think of given the right time/circumstances. So basically, you put together a lot of assumptions that are based on simplifications of the problem, which means your conclusions are simply flawed.

1) The secret to creating a non-dualistic morality may lie in the studying of the cause and effect of various situations.

As I said, there is no secret. Everybody here would agree that in some situations what is bad and what is good may be more complex than how we normally see it. And at that point the choice of how to react is simply the question of how dedicated we are to adhering to our principles. In a simplified example, a person who considers killing others for any reason as wrong, and believes they themselves should never kill a person might or might not murder Hitler if they had the chance. This would be a moral struggle without a clear cut answer, and the result depends on the person and the circumstances.

2) By doing this, we can create conclusions based on those consequences (effects).

So if the effect is either the death of 2 people or the death of just 1, you would suggest a pragmatic solution? Because that would imply you'd need a common denominator in order to judge which solution would have the "best" effects. In other words, you'd have to boil everything down to one currency and compare by it. Do you believe that calculating the value of human life in currency is morally right? Because that's basically what you would need to use. Which in itself is considered morally wrong for many people. And if you use a calculation method that is morally wrong for some, in order to come up with the morally best solution to a situation, means you're doing it wrong.

3) Since we wish for the conclusions to be free from absolutism, they must not be based on the positivity or negativity of consequences.

That would mean pure pragmatism. Are you aiming to tell us that maximising efficiency in everything does not necessarily have to mean the most morally pleasing solution? Because I'm sure everyone here is aware of that.

4) The "process" we use for creating said conclusions must be free from the problem known as situational absolutism.

Again, you're basically saying that in order to establish the best process of finding the best solution we'd have to abandon all forms of morality. Absolute good and evil, positivity and negativity etc. Are you not seeing the problem here? You've originally set out to find the moral "right". Now you're concluding that to find the best moral "right" you must not take any morality into account.

5) Non-dualistic morality, in conclusion, must not only be free from absolutism, but must also not contradict itself.

Which is what you just did. A moral system that cannot allow subjective morality, personal choice, or absolute values.

I don't see how much plainer I can make this. I do not know why my "heart" causes me to take actions that have nothing to do with absolutes of right and wrong. I just base those actions on the effect I wish to see from the cause. But this is irrelevant, seeing as we're not judging me - we're judging the situation and each individual in response to the situation. An individual's sense of ethics is just a factor - it isn't the situation's core.

You claimed to be an INFP. Let me ask you then, do YOU know what that means? Means that there are other people, like me, who are for example INTJ. I Think where you Feel, and Judge where you Perceive. My method of understanding things is thus different than yours. And still you don't understand that some people might have trouble understanding and following your line of thought? Maybe if you stop being a self-serving idiot it will come to you, someday.
But for now, from what I understood from your ranting, you set out to give an example of reaching a good moral system, did a bunch of simplifications to moral perceptions and behaviours, derived a bunch of conclusions from false assertions, most of which are imho common knowledge to majority of people (even if they cannot understand you because of how messed up your methods of conveying your thoughts are), at which point you derived at a final conclusion which directly contradicts what you supposedly initially set out to do. That's how it looks to me, Krest.

All in all, this seems to me like a typical example of a pseudo-intellectual university blabber. Smarter people have been going over this before already, Krest. So I doubt you'll get to any conclusions that have not already been either debunked or established. So as much as you can entertain yourself with these thoughts, they ultimately serve no purpose.

I think your hamartia lies in your inability to discern the difference between "the morally right action" and "the right thing to do in this situation". And here I'll rock your whole world darling when I tell you, these may be completely different. I, for example, do not think that killing anyone, ever, is the morally right thing to do. But I do think that killing Hitler before WW2 (man I hate this generic example, but let's roll with it) might have been the right thing to do. Even though morally wrong. See what I did there? Moral absolutism, that doesn't affect the pragmatic decision making based on the best outcome. Have fun with that train of thought.


Also, I should probably mention that there is no "morality". Every person has several types of morality, genetic, social, emotional, and so on, add pragmatism on top of it and then you get a severely complicated and entwined system where several "right" solutions may appear, each from a different type of the morality types we all posses. These solutions then compete and we weigh them against one another. This is the very reason why we have moral dilemmas in the first place. And there is no clear system of establishing which to go with, as they are all correct in their own way. The final solutions we take depend purely on our personal traits and how much trust we put and heed we pay to each system.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3307
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Krest » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:28 am

But that isn't acceptable overall. Sure, it's nice to reiterate the fact that thousands of people have already considered this. But we are living in an age where individualism and *cough* anarchy *cough* (real anarchy won't survive but direct democracy will) are becoming far more important, requiring changes to the law and judicial system. Some process must exist to judge people whilst considering ethics of all kinds - agape, utility, personal, vengeance, happiness, etc - in the coming age.

While I do admit that my statements do counter themselves - I already stated that they would! I suggested aid to help generate a process that does not contradict itself. I directly stated that. Thus, I already knew of the contradictions. Re-stating those contradictions yourself won't help this idea in any way; coming up with changes and advancements that annihilate those contradictions will.


Oh, and killing Hitler before his time would be a TERRIBLE idea, but whatever floats your boat. (EnglandwouldhaveuseditssuperiortechnologyinanewageofconquestthusdestroyingtherestofEuropeandthefeebleUSwhichnevergained accesstoEngland'sblueprintssinceWW2didn'thappen.)
Sleep With Neil Patrick Harris
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:29 am
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Blood Lord » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:51 am

Keep digging your hole, Krest.
Snafu Gold Card Member!

offline
 
Posts: 18986
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Q.U. » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:14 pm

Oh, and killing Hitler before his time would be a TERRIBLE idea, but whatever floats your boat.

To be honest, I don't know or care if it would be, it was an arbitrary example. But I do have to point out that you are throwing a piece of complete speculation on a course of history that did not happen, and can no longer be tested. Once again, a pointless endeavour. We don't know and will never know what could have happened.

While I do admit that my statements do counter themselves - I already stated that they would! I suggested aid to help generate a process that does not contradict itself. I directly stated that. Thus, I already knew of the contradictions.

So you stated that the regular idea is wrong because it contradicts itself and boasted having a concept or idea as to how to fix it, and yet still reiterated the flawed one?
You should become a politician. So far all you've done on the subject was remind everyone why what we know/have sucks and needs to be changed, but haven't proposed any reliable or testable hypothesis for a solution whatsoever. Since you were so adamant about having a different viewpoint I had assumed that that viewpoint would be the subject of the debate, instead we're debating why the method that doesn't work is bad. Which again, is pointless.
Also, don't suggest aid, come up with solutions or at least workable ideas. There are loads of people who will shout all day about how they want to change something for the better, but nobody will take you seriously until you present a reliable alternative. So... yeah.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3307
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Saint Soul » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:21 pm

This is entertaining. someone pass the popcorn.


Krest you contradict your points and thus have done youself a disservice.

You have dodged BRs question by redirecting it. How do you think it makes you look when you can't reflect on your self or what you say when someone asks you to? Well it can lead someone to think you can't or don't see it and aren't capable of seeing something from an objective point of view. at which point eliminates any validity to any of your claims.

Why should we take you seriously?
User formaly known as Soulchild
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: in the TARDIS
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Krest » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:26 pm

Why shouldn't I be?
Sleep With Neil Patrick Harris
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:29 am
Gender: Male

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Blood Lord » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:27 pm

Answer the question Krest.

Stop being evasive. Stand up and defend yourself like a man.
Snafu Gold Card Member!

offline
 
Posts: 18986
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:21 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Krest Omnithread

Postby Krest » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:30 pm

Pot calling the kettle black, much?

I already said I don't know what parts of my OP are ironic. Then Q.U. and everyone else states that I do. When I don't.

So you're all assuming I know something I don't and are expecting me to show something I can't find.

You're not taking me seriously. And you don't feel as if you HAVE to take me seriously. How is that not subjective?
Sleep With Neil Patrick Harris
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:29 am
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to Central Compton Botanical Gardens

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests