Reply With Quote
When you talked to Baudrillard, what did he say about his study of my psychology?
We're speaking of abstract concepts, not die in a box. Stop being glib
When you talked to Baudrillard, what did he say about his study of my psychology?
It isn't glib. I have made an assertion that is directly relevant. You are dissembling.
Can we, in this case determine which truth is clearly, objectively superior?
yes or no.
You're continuing to be glib.
And in this case, or any other, no.
I dunno. Try reading what I've posted and substsntively engaging it and lemme know
ALternately:
What external corroberation devoid of subjective interest did he present to you personally that "imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering"?
Don't want this to get too buried. Still waiting on an answer for it.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-17-2013 at 12:05 PM.
It isn't glib. I have made an assertion that is directly relevant. You are dissembling.
Can we, in this case determine which truth is clearly, objectively superior?
yes or no.
Well then, let's expand on it then a bit and see if we can agree that one of those truths is falsifiable. "there are four dice in the box" is a truth at is clearly falsifiable and can be objectively determined by experimentation.
I would a "superior" truth, on that can be based on evidence, and can be reproduced.
Is one of those truths falsifiable by independent, objective observation?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-17-2013 at 11:44 AM.
..
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-17-2013 at 12:51 AM. Reason: double post.. albeit a bit better worded.
I do not feel the need to rebut, point by point, bull philosophy that makes unsupported claims about the psychological make up of human beings, nor do I even need to, in order to prove that the "evidence" you have presented to support murdering children is clearly laughable. You might consider it "evidence" by your definition, but I doubt any moral person on the planet would consider it good evidence, any more than a house constructed out of bull is a "good" house. It is still made of bull .
That is not glib, it is fully sincere and every question I have been asking builds that case rather directly. I have caught you in one logical fallacy so far.
He is not being glib. you are being evasive. If you don't like his question then argue the premise on merit. What you do not do is answer it as if it is valid in a way that is easily discredited. It makes you look like a sophist fool. Congratulations.
I truly hope that your witless argumentation is an act or that you have some excellent people that do the heavy lifting for you because I see you as being a joy to litigate against elsewise.
Ah, another interested party.
I will give you the same question I gave WC.
Is letting children starve to death moral?
Yes or no will do.
Here's the thing about holding out bull philosophy as a truth and "evidence" for something, and then denying that one cannot find a clearly objective, superior truth.
You then put creationists, who, up front give you their truth:
on equal footing with people who can quantify and objectively determine, as far as humans can, the truth of the universe:
If there is no possibility of arriving at a superior truth, then both are equal.
is just as true as
or
is just as true as
Lastly, if you put all truths as equal, you kind of make the legal system irrelevant
Because
is just as true as
Kinda makes the whole adversarial system seem pointless doesn't it?
You can have the same question:
Is letting children starve to death moral?
Yes or no will do.
Children who should've never been born and stand little chance at a normal life or being productive in society? Yeah, let 'em starve--and while we're at it curb your righteous indignation and blame the irresponsible parents.
...
[QUOTE=vy65;6948875 I have no obligation to give a starving man a sandwich. No court would convict me for not saving a starving man. It's not murder.[/QUOTE]
Criminial negligence is then determined by state of mind. In your case the omission is intentional. You have a sandwich, the man will die without food.
You omit to give him food.PENAL CODE
LE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY
Sec. 6.01. REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION. (a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession.
I don't know, I am not a lawyer. It would though, seem to me that a case for knowingly causing death by withholding food could be made.
Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.Since your withholding of food is, as stated, intentional, it would seem to meet the criteria for at least manslaughter.Sec. 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.
(b) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element.
(c) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is nevertheless required under Subsection (b), intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffices to establish criminal responsibility.
(d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.
(e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged cons utes proof of the culpability charged.
Murder? Manslaughter?
I would defer to an expert.
I didn't ask you what you think should happen.
I asked you if it is moral or not.
yes or no will do.
Is is moral to allow children to starve to death?
Same question:
Is is moral to allow children to starve to death?
Stupid, blanket question where you're looking to appease your self-righteous social crusade. I answered it appropriately in my previous post, and if you don't like it then step off your soapbox and gain a fresh perspective.
Also, NFL Redzone just started so don't bother me with anymore stupid questions till midnight. Thanks.
Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
"Broods of failure"
Funny way to talk about children.
What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?
So the question was what do you do about the children.
The response was:
"Let them starve to death."
Then when you get called to the mat on it, it is suddently "man", and dissembling about "murder" and intentional killing.
Sophistry:
a. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound
2. a person who reasons adroitly and speciously
I could be simply misinterpreting intent. Vy could simply not have read my original question closely, in which case, the question still stands.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-18-2013 at 12:16 PM. Reason: spelling. I suck.
So, your answer is yes, to you, letting children starve to death when you can easily feed them is moral.
Thank you.
You can just say that you find nothing wrong with taking no action to prevent people from starving. You can certainly make the case as a utilitarian. I think along those same lines to an extent. I think you have to think that way as a policy maker.
Is letting a population grow past it's ability to sustain itself moral? The more lives saved now means even more death in future generations.
Which is worse?
If we have the ability to fix things, then we need to. However, the root problems need to be fixed, else we keep applying bandages.
In general it is not but I can certainly think of specific cir stances that except from the general rule though. Given the tremendous food surplus we have in this country I think the answer should be obvious in what you are getting at.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
