| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Comments:
<0> "Next time, talk more about what I said in the cl***."
<1> And that they really aren't worth the bad grades
<2> Debian or Ubuntu?
<1> And, I guess part of my thinking is this
<1> These idiots have closely held beliefs
<1> And they're really, really, tragically wrong and deeply flawed
<1> And I sort of feel sorry for them
<3> yeah, and there's no hope of convincing them otherwise
<1> Well, there is, but it's a pummelling
<3> well, this is a community college
<1> It requires something on the level of an addiction intervention
<1> You can really damage people that way
<3> so the stupidity factor is higher than typical
<1> Oh, trust me, it's like that everywhere
<1> Talk to someone from the kennedy school some time
<3> but next semester i'll be in a different school
<0> It's a leftist factor.
<1> It's thoughtlessness
<1> People are born looking at the world through a window
<0> "Learning to code is not so important--it's really about learning to work in a group!"
<1> It takes growth and understanding and openness to be able to cross through that window and think of others the way you think of yourself
<1> It's not innate
<1> So kids tend to be very selfish
<3> yeah the professor touched on that most people are raised very liberally
<1> Then they grow and realize that pure selfishness sort of doesn't work
<0> What do you mean by selfishness?
<1> And they're attracted to liberalism, because it sounds like the opposite
<1> Then they realize that that doesn't work either, over time
<1> And they focus more on rights
<1> That's the libertarian/objectivist stage
<1> Then they usually quickly realize that that doesn't work well either, in isolation
<1> And they start factoring in everything, and bingo, a thirty year old conservative
<1> I think having kids is what triggers that last step or two in most people
<1> It's very easy to say "my rights are paramount" when you don't have dependents
<1> So I pretty firmly believe that people who are liberal just haven't grown enough, or haven't been exposed to the right things
<0> Not exactly. It's easy to say "my rights are paramount" when you don't have fear.
<1> Yeah yeah
<1> Say that when you hold your first kid in your arms
<3> I heard something on the news today... I wish I didn't miss part of it, but it was something about iran or israel or some country threatening an attack if something happened (can't recall what the something was)
<0> And Caesar Soze was unjustified in killing his own family. ;)
<1> France restated their willingness to nuke any country that commits a terrorist act against them
<1> Lateralus, there's more to morality than justification
<0> Morality is rational.
<1> Cookies have sugar.
<1> But that doesn't get you a pan of cookies, does it.
<3> oh, it was france? hm
<0> ...It does if cookies require sugar...
<1> Well, France did that, there may have been others
<1> Nobody's impressed by France's statement any more than they are by Bin Laden's, but there you go
<1> Probably currying favor with his right wing voters
<0> JBlitzen: Are you saying that morality is not rational?
<1> Lateralus, the problem is that that's not a cookie recipe.
<1> I'm saying that it doesn't matter that morality is rational.
<1> Rationality is overrated.
<0> JBlitzen: There's such a thing as a "cookie," and there's such a thing as "a recipe that makes a cookie."
<1> I've met a lot of idiots who were really good people.
<0> ...Idiots aren't "rational."
<1> And I've met a lot of "rational" sophisticates who I wouldn't trust with a stick.
<0> Rationality requires trust?
<1> Objectivism is the belief that because you can perform basic math, you're somehow completed your moral development.
<1> But rationality is inherently a priori.
<1> You need right influences for rationality to work.
<1> And you need right initiative.
<1> People grow up in Africa, watching neighbors rape and kill their family members, and it's difficult to understand how them killing their enemies is irrational
<0> Not exactly. A priorism calls no external justifications. Objectivism *requires* external justifications.
<1> They're doing what they've watched work all their life
<1> You belittle people when you cast off their mistakes as products of irrationality
<1> Even criminals are rational
<1> Even Hitler was rational
<0> "Rational?" How so?
<1> Because he went from premises to conclusions without committing large errors
<0> Premise: Jews cause all our problems. Conclusion: kill all jews. Error: Jews were not our problems after all: statism was.
<1> Yeah, but, you're wrong.
<1> I mean, it sounds nice, it sounds like a line from Sneakers, but it's wrong.
<0> How so?
<1> Because it's only a logic error if he has reason to believe he's mistaken
<1> He didn't grow up in your shoes
<1> He wasn't exposed to Jews the way you were
<1> He wasn't exposed to beliefs about Jews that affected his upbringing
<0> Edison didn't grow up with the lightbulb, but he invented it nevertheless. What's your point?
<1> He didn't learn that human beings are precious
<1> He thought there were things more precious than human life
<1> Like,
<1> For instance,
<1> Rationality
<1> And that's pretty much where the objectivist position falls crashing in flames to the far below earth
<0> You didn't answer my question.
<1> I didn't read your question, because I was making a valid point.
<1> Thus, I was not exposed to your position and its possible merits.
<1> Thus, I LACK some premises
<0> Objectivism has nothing to do with "human life" as an *end unto itself,* because that isn't what human life is about.
<1> Which does not mean that my conclusions are invalid based on the ones I have
<1> I know
<0> It's about *creation.*
<1> And that's why objectivism blows.
<0> Human life has value unto itself?
<1> Yes.
<0> How so?
<1> Let me put it this way.
<1> Your confusion about that is as striking to me as Hitler's.
<1> And, in fact, I would not be suprised to find that Hitler would respond the same way.
<0> That means nothing.
<1> Only because you refuse to let it.
<1> Which, to me, doesn't seem very rational.
<1> But rationality isn't the whole cookie recipe.
<0> Why does human life have value unto itself?
<1> Because it does.
<0> Why?
<1> Because it's all we have.
<0> What causes it?
<1> At the end of the day, nothing else means anything other than that we exist
<0> Existence is not *value.*
<1> And the best way to insure that that state continues is to place a social value on human life
<1> Well, I'm not looking for the walmart school of philosophy, but I understand that that's your thing right now.
<1> If I'm a starving man in the desert, I don't cast off the oasis because the water tastes icky
<0> For example, if "I don't want to die," it doesn't mean that I "want to live." Wanting to live is *life.* "Not wanting to die"is just fear of death.
<1> I don't think objectivists truly realize how alone they are.
<1> Yeah, I watched Babylon 5 too
<1> I didn't take it on faith
<0> Heh. I haven't.
<1> I don't think you have a proper appreciation for the huge impact that your life experience has had on your outlook
<0> Human life has no value unto itself. It is what we *do* with our lives that creates value. "Life as value", in and of itself, comes from nothing.
<1> Right
<1> And you're the judge of what we do
<1> Hope the Jews can keep you impressed
<0> ? I'm the judge of what *I* do.
<1> Okay, then so long as people think well of themselves, they have value?
<1> Congratulations, you just took a header straight from objectivism to the deepest bowels of liberalism
<3> heh
<0> "Liberals," in the modern sense, do not think well of themselves. They are icons of self-hate.
<1> See, rdragon, this guy's a total mess
<1> Oh come on, Lateralus, that's a weak argument
<3> i'm reading, but I don't really follow what he's trying to say
<1> He doesn't either
<0> What is a "liberal" trait?
<1> Prominence of personal desire?
<0> In the cl***ical sense, perhaps. In the modern sense, "personal desire" tends to equate to nihilistic "desires," such as "group over individual" beliefs, or drug usage.
<1> Ahhh, cl***ic versus modern
<1> Isn't that cute
<0> The meaning of the word "liberal" has changed since its original usage.
<1> It's changed very little
<4> what is liberal
<0> Hayek, for example, would be called a "conservative" today, but a liberal in his own day.
<4> what is conservative
<1> I'm not familiar with Hayek
<1> Xbok, it's a bit complicated and would only serve to detract from this discussion
<3> Salma Hayek?
<1> But ask me some other time
<4> ok
<4> is the definition universal or vary from place to place?
<1> Well
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
sthrnsqrl
#php
#chatzone
Kimberly Berly
#linux
nicknameuri
#linux
what cigar did george peppard smoke?
#windows
#MissKitten
|
|