"Morally' violent?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

FFS, you even replied to one of my first posts concerning the fact that I don't believe there is such a things as objective absolute morality.

Chill, dude! I was merely critiquing your choice of words and argument stylings. You need to be clearer if you want to have a discussion that doesn't degenerate into misunderstandings and shouting, dig?

You voiced your comment in such terms as led the reader to assume you meant something you did not. Hence, the fault for all the following cross-purpose bollock-talking was yours.

Had you said at the outset...

Would it be objectively, morally wrong to kill Hitler to put a stop to the extermination of the Jews? Of course not. Because there is no such thing as objective morality.

...then your meaning would have been clear and the thread would have taken a very different course.


Morality is only ever an individual choice. It is absolute only inside a single skull at a particular time. Beyond that, it is totally fluid and malleable.

[pErvinalia]

To be considered morally wrong there needs to be objective morality. In the context of the discussion.

Not really. The fact that some people consider something to be morally wrong does not necessitate the existence of objective morality. It just means that at least some of them think that objective morality exists.

Yeah, that's basically what I meant.

Meh. Now you made me think of that intellectual dwarf, Sam Harris. Damn you.

Yeah. And some rationalists do subscribe to his ideas. I reckon his ideas are a case study in how rationalists can in fact be religious in effect. It seems to me the same principle behind wanting to believe in a higher power. He's just replacing "God" with "Objective morality". Just because a lot of humans (perhaps nearly all of us?) instinctually want there to be a higher explanation for it all doesn't mean that there has to be one. I think he falls into the same trap that religionists do.

[pErvinalia]

FFS, you even replied to one of my first posts concerning the fact that I don't believe there is such a things as objective absolute morality.

Chill, dude! I was merely critiquing your choice of words and argument stylings. You need to be clearer if you want to have a discussion that doesn't degenerate into misunderstandings and shouting, dig?

You voiced your comment in such terms as led the reader to assume you meant something you did not. Hence, the fault for all the following cross-purpose bollock-talking was yours.

Had you said at the outset...

Would it be objectively, morally wrong to kill Hitler to put a stop to the extermination of the Jews? Of course not. Because there is no such thing as objective morality.

...then your meaning would have been clear and the thread would have taken a very different course.

Right. It's my fault that you forgot what I wrote a number of times earlier in the thread. Ok.

Morality is only ever an individual choice. It is absolute only inside a single skull at a particular time. Beyond that, it is totally fluid and malleable.

We obviously agree on the issue of morality. There's no need for us to argue.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Right. It's my fault that you forgot what I wrote a number of times earlier in the thread. Ok.

No. It's your fault that you assumed I'd even read it!

[laklak]

It's fucking Obama's fault. Everything is Obama's fault.

[Blind groper]

That makes a nice change. My wife says everything is my fault.

[cronus]

If you are searching for someone to blame you have only to look in the mirror.

[Seth]

I think if there is any intrinsic morality it's survival of the fittest. Which is to say that it's morally correct for a species to survive through evolutionary success. I cannot think of an example of evolution being morally wrong since ipso facto evolution selects (eventually) for the fittest.

[mistermack]

So long as a burglar offers no force against an occupant while in the house, the occupants are NOT entitled to use deadly force.

Try and get that through your thick head please.

You're so full of shit. You've already forgotten the Texan cripple who killed the hooker by shooting her in the back, when she tried to leave without providing the sex she promised?

All perfectly legal, apparently. According to US justice.

[pErvinalia]

I think if there is any intrinsic morality it's survival of the fittest. Which is to say that it's morally correct for a species to survive through evolutionary success. I cannot think of an example of evolution being morally wrong since ipso facto evolution selects (eventually) for the fittest.

"species" is a human construct.

And when (and how) do you decide that "eventually" has taken place?

[Seth]

So long as a burglar offers no force against an occupant while in the house, the occupants are NOT entitled to use deadly force.

Try and get that through your thick head please.

You're so full of shit. You've already forgotten the Texan cripple who killed the hooker by shooting her in the back, when she tried to leave without providing the sex she promised?

All perfectly legal, apparently. According to US justice.

Actually, that's Texas law, which is, admittedly, more liberal in the authority to use deadly force than any other state.

Also, she took his money and then tried to leave, which is robbery, not burglary. Different kettle of fish entirely.

[Seth]

I think if there is any intrinsic morality it's survival of the fittest. Which is to say that it's morally correct for a species to survive through evolutionary success. I cannot think of an example of evolution being morally wrong since ipso facto evolution selects (eventually) for the fittest.

"species" is a human construct.

And when (and how) do you decide that "eventually" has taken place?

Fuck off.

[mistermack]

So long as a burglar offers no force against an occupant while in the house, the occupants are NOT entitled to use deadly force.

Try and get that through your thick head please.

You're so full of shit. You've already forgotten the Texan cripple who killed the hooker by shooting her in the back, when she tried to leave without providing the sex she promised?

All perfectly legal, apparently. According to US justice.

Actually, that's Texas law, which is, admittedly, more liberal in the authority to use deadly force than any other state.

Also, she took his money and then tried to leave, which is robbery, not burglary. Different kettle of fish entirely.

Well, she didn't take it. He gave it. It's not the same thing.
It's not burglary, but are you saying that if she'd broken in and took his money, it's not ok to kill her, but if he lets her in and hands it over willingly, it is?

Only in America.

[pErvinalia]

I think if there is any intrinsic morality it's survival of the fittest. Which is to say that it's morally correct for a species to survive through evolutionary success. I cannot think of an example of evolution being morally wrong since ipso facto evolution selects (eventually) for the fittest.

"species" is a human construct.

And when (and how) do you decide that "eventually" has taken place?

Fuck off.

Girly-man!!

[Seth]

So long as a burglar offers no force against an occupant while in the house, the occupants are NOT entitled to use deadly force.

Try and get that through your thick head please.

You're so full of shit. You've already forgotten the Texan cripple who killed the hooker by shooting her in the back, when she tried to leave without providing the sex she promised?

All perfectly legal, apparently. According to US justice.

Actually, that's Texas law, which is, admittedly, more liberal in the authority to use deadly force than any other state.

Also, she took his money and then tried to leave, which is robbery, not burglary. Different kettle of fish entirely.

Well, she didn't take it. He gave it. It's not the same thing.

Yes, it most certainly is. If I give you a tenner in exchange for a pack of cigarettes and you run off with the tenner before delivering the fags, you have just robbed me.

It's not burglary, but are you saying that if she'd broken in and took his money, it's not ok to kill her, but if he lets her in and hands it over willingly, it is?

Only in America.

The law distinguishes between burglary and robbery based on the presence and potential threat of harm to the victim. Taking something from someone's unoccupied home does not threaten the occupants. Home invasions are not "burglaries" they are "robberies" because they take place when the occupants are present and therefore their lives and safety are placed in jeopardy.

That's why sticking up a bank or a jewelry store is not burglary, it's robbery, and you're damned right a victim has a right to use deadly force to prevent robbery.

In this case, while he handed her the money, she robbed him of it by leaving without providing the promised service, which is the same, legally, as pointing a gun at him and demanding he hand over the cash. The law always treats crimes where the victim is present more harshly than when they are not present. And justifiably so.

The lesson: Don't take shit that doesn't belong to you from someone else, lest they shoot you. Pretty simple concept really.