Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Smacks wrote:
Can you condone an unethical ideology, because someone believes it deeply, without yourself being unethical?
Or does believing very deeply in an unethical ideology make it any more ethical?
It depends on the degree to which ethical ideologies turn on tolerance.
Regardless there still exists the double standard... If you are going to be tolerant of an unethical ideology, then surely you should also be tolerant of Nazism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/15 03:55:33
Oh please, I didn't call anyone a Nazi for their opinion. We were discussing ideologies that are tolerated and not tolerated in western culture.
I really don't know why I come to this forum sometimes, there are just so many snarky people everywhere. Maybe it's true that guys who play with little soldiers into adulthood really are just people to be avoided.
Smacks wrote:
Regardless there still exists the double standard... If you are going to be tolerant of an unethical ideology, then surely you should also be tolerant of Nazism.
You've made the two most common mistakes of people who do not study ethics.
1: There is no reason to presume I must excuse one unethical ideology unless my standard entails that such an ideology is unethical.
2: The "ethical" nature of any given thing is a characteristic of that thing.
Go back and read the last 400 years of moral philosophy, then try again.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/07/15 04:33:18
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Smacks wrote:
Regardless there still exists the double standard... If you are going to be tolerant of an unethical ideology, then surely you should also be tolerant of Nazism.
You've made the two most common mistakes of people who do not study ethics.
1: There is no reason to presume I must excuse one unethical ideology unless my standard entails that such an ideology is unethical.
2: The "ethical" nature of any given thing is a characteristic of that thing.
Go back and read the last 400 years of moral philosophy, then try again.
I made no such mistakes. If you read back I did not ask you to 'excuse' an unethical ideology. I asked you if you could excuse an unethical ideology without yourself being unethical. Whether or not you do excuse the ideology, for whatever extenuating circumstance, has no baring on the answer since any persons ethical construct would have its own internal consistency. It is also therefore not required that 'ethical' should be a true/flase characteristic of any one thing, just that it is viewed from the same moral frame of reference, 'unethical' is always 'unethical' by definition regardless of your actual moral stance. An analogy would be that starboard is always starboard on ship no matter which way the compass points, providing you are standing on the ship.
In any case, I thought your replies were interesting before (if a little evasive), but now they seem to be becoming rude and patronising. So much for rule 1, I think I've had enough of this topic anyhow.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/07/15 05:29:46
Smacks wrote:
I made no such mistakes. If you read back I did not ask you to 'excuse' an unethical ideology. I asked you if you could excuse an unethical ideology without yourself being unethical.
There is no difference unless you consider ethics to be objective, which is to say there is no difference unless you know nothing about ethics.
Smacks wrote:
...'unethical' is always 'unethical' by definition regardless of your actual moral stance.
No, that's entirely wrong. Revisit the meaning of "ethical" and "unethical".
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Smacks wrote:
I made no such mistakes. If you read back I did not ask you to 'excuse' an unethical ideology. I asked you if you could excuse an unethical ideology without yourself being unethical.
There is no difference unless you consider ethics to be objective, which is to say there is no difference unless you know nothing about ethics.
You are misunderstanding me. If your only frame of reference is that of 'The subject' then subjectiveness loses all meaning, everything from beauty to right and wrong becomes distinctly objective.
Smacks wrote:
...'unethical' is always 'unethical' by definition regardless of your actual moral stance.
No, that's entirely wrong. Revisit the meaning of "ethical" and "unethical".
Considering that unethical is a word that means unethical I can prove through the intrinsic nature of words meaning what they mean, that it is in fact, not wrong.
If something is considered to be unethical then it is by definition considered to be unethical. Something might not be considered to be unethical by everyone, but everyone does consider something to be unethical.
I don't see how there can be any requirement to be objective within a question that contains no object.
TrollPie wrote:When someone provides a good reason for taking Christianity/Islam/Hinduism etc more seriously than Pastafarianism, I'll have a better view on organised religion.
Now they hatin'.
when i meet an atheist/agnostic at school i generally just nod politely when i get preached to. When they ask me what I am, and I reply christian, i get reamed and called stupid and ignorant. This has been my experience with at least 3/4 atheists/agnostics that I meet. Not all are bad, i have met some who agree to disagree, but are annyoing
Every atheist I've known personally has been an absolute prick. I'm there are some that aren't, but, probably like most people, don't go around with their (non)religion on their shoulders.
EDIT: absent priests and certain individuals who truly walk with God, I could say the same for most people who walk with their religion on their shoulders as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Godwin wept.
Oh please, I didn't call anyone a Nazi for their opinion. We were discussing ideologies that are tolerated and not tolerated in western culture.
I really don't know why I come to this forum sometimes, there are just so many snarky people everywhere. Maybe it's true that guys who play with little soldiers into adulthood really are just people to be avoided.
Some might say if you don't like it don't let the internet door hit your ass on the way out.
I would never say such a thing. I love all people, and am a friend to small animals and children, especially when they are on my yard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
dajobe wrote:
TrollPie wrote:When someone provides a good reason for taking Christianity/Islam/Hinduism etc more seriously than Pastafarianism, I'll have a better view on organised religion.
Now they hatin'.
when i meet an atheist/agnostic at school i generally just nod politely when i get preached to. When they ask me what I am, and I reply christian, i get reamed and called stupid and ignorant. This has been my experience with at least 3/4 atheists/agnostics that I meet. Not all are bad, i have met some who agree to disagree, but are annyoing
Really? I'm Catholic and I have to say the worst offenders were the Christians coming onto my university campus and telling us we were all going to hell! I actually found it very amusing myself. My favorite was when some guy said all the lesbians were going to hell, little did he see that coincidentally the woman's rugby team were walking by, that quickly turned into one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
Ayah, I'd have to proffer ranting religious nuts get under my skin as well. Frankly I take the view that fanatics of any stripe are best avoided. UNless of course they are fanatical about queso or dogs.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/07/15 11:42:19
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Andrew1975 wrote:I think it comes down to the fact that in general in the US if someone is pushing religion on you, it tends to be a christian. I can't think of the last time a Buddhist came up to me and told me I was on the wrong path towards enlightenment. Daily I see some christians trying to make people feel guilty.
Clearly you don't remember the joys of Hari Krishnas. Crap I can't find the right airpost scene but this is even better:
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeI5ke0BENw[/youtube]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote:
dogma wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Can you condone an unethical ideology, because someone believes it deeply, without yourself being unethical?
Or does believing very deeply in an unethical ideology make it any more ethical?
It depends on the degree to which ethical ideologies turn on tolerance.
Regardless there still exists the double standard... If you are going to be tolerant of an unethical ideology, then surely you should also be tolerant of Nazism.
Whats your deal with Nazis? You do know comparing anyone but Nazis to Nazis pretty much just makes you sound like an ass right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/15 11:39:10
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I used to be enraged by fundamentalist anythings, but now I just kind of pity them. They've walled themselves up so tight in their sureness and turned it as a weapon against the world to develop their own sense of self worth. They're so far in denial that they could apply for Egyptian citizenship. Conversely, I enjoy discussing religion with people who are intelligent in their views and open to new possibilities and interpretations of their beliefs.
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature.
Smacks wrote:
I made no such mistakes. If you read back I did not ask you to 'excuse' an unethical ideology. I asked you if you could excuse an unethical ideology without yourself being unethical.
There is no difference unless you consider ethics to be objective, which is to say there is no difference unless you know nothing about ethics.
You are misunderstanding me. If your only frame of reference is that of 'The subject' then subjectiveness loses all meaning, everything from beauty to right and wrong becomes distinctly objective.
I don't agree with this. If the subject is one's only frame of reference with regard to ethical questions, then the ethical position that said subject takes is inescapably subjective because inter-subjectivity means that an ethical standard can never be absolute.
TrollPie wrote:When someone provides a good reason for taking Christianity/Islam/Hinduism etc more seriously than Pastafarianism, I'll have a better view on organised religion.
Now they hatin'.
when i meet an atheist/agnostic at school i generally just nod politely when i get preached to. When they ask me what I am, and I reply christian, i get reamed and called stupid and ignorant. This has been my experience with at least 3/4 atheists/agnostics that I meet. Not all are bad, i have met some who agree to disagree, but are annyoing
Really? I'm Catholic and I have to say the worst offenders were the Christians coming onto my university campus and telling us we were all going to hell! I actually found it very amusing myself. My favorite was when some guy said all the lesbians were going to hell, little did he see that coincidentally the woman's rugby team were walking by, that quickly turned into one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
QFT, in the end i think it comes down to if someone is trying to preach whatever it is to you, and refuses to leave you alone or be cordial about it, then they are going to be very annoying. i find that most radicals are generally annoying.
here is one dialogue i had with a catholic in Boy Scouts:
Catholic: You are going to hell!
Me:Why, I believe in God and Jesus and the Bible
Catholic:because you arent catholic...
that guy is a and i never talk to him because he is a
Frigian 582nd "the regulars" with thousand sons detachment 5th Edition
W : L : D
23 : 20 : 7
6th Edition
W : L : D
Don't Know...alot of each
Bretonnians
W : L : D
4 : 2 : 0
"Those are Regulars! By God!" -Major General Phineas Riall
TrollPie wrote:When someone provides a good reason for taking Christianity/Islam/Hinduism etc more seriously than Pastafarianism, I'll have a better view on organised religion.
Now they hatin'.
when i meet an atheist/agnostic at school i generally just nod politely when i get preached to. When they ask me what I am, and I reply christian, i get reamed and called stupid and ignorant. This has been my experience with at least 3/4 atheists/agnostics that I meet. Not all are bad, i have met some who agree to disagree, but are annyoing
Really? I'm Catholic and I have to say the worst offenders were the Christians coming onto my university campus and telling us we were all going to hell! I actually found it very amusing myself. My favorite was when some guy said all the lesbians were going to hell, little did he see that coincidentally the woman's rugby team were walking by, that quickly turned into one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
QFT, in the end i think it comes down to if someone is trying to preach whatever it is to you, and refuses to leave you alone or be cordial about it, then they are going to be very annoying. i find that most radicals are generally annoying.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I hate those super religious people who are so special and so holy that they are "Holier than thou!", and though their religion calls for them to love their neighbor, they refuse to even acknowledge you IN CHURCH.
Hypocripsy!
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
I hate those super religious people who are so special and so holy that they are "Holier than thou!", and though their religion calls for them to love their neighbor, they refuse to even acknowledge you IN CHURCH.
Hypocripsy!
Thats nothing. I hate it when I am not acknowledged in the liquor store.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I hate those super religious people who are so special and so holy that they are "Holier than thou!", and though their religion calls for them to love their neighbor, they refuse to even acknowledge you IN CHURCH.
Hypocripsy!
Thats nothing. I hate it when I am not acknowledged in the liquor store.
I unfortunately don't have the ability to have that problem
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
I hate those super religious people who are so special and so holy that they are "Holier than thou!", and though their religion calls for them to love their neighbor, they refuse to even acknowledge you IN CHURCH.
Hypocripsy!
Thats nothing. I hate it when I am not acknowledged in the liquor store.
I unfortunately don't have the ability to have that problem
You don't have a face!?
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature.
I hate those super religious people who are so special and so holy that they are "Holier than thou!", and though their religion calls for them to love their neighbor, they refuse to even acknowledge you IN CHURCH.
Hypocripsy!
Thats nothing. I hate it when I am not acknowledged in the liquor store.
I unfortunately don't have the ability to have that problem
You don't have a face!?
Maybe, but I can't buy liquor :(
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
I hate those super religious people who are so special and so holy that they are "Holier than thou!", and though their religion calls for them to love their neighbor, they refuse to even acknowledge you IN CHURCH.
Hypocripsy!
Thats nothing. I hate it when I am not acknowledged in the liquor store.
I unfortunately don't have the ability to have that problem
You don't have a face!?
Maybe, but I can't buy liquor :(
Damn this prejudice against people without faces! Damn it!
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature.
I hate those super religious people who are so special and so holy that they are "Holier than thou!", and though their religion calls for them to love their neighbor, they refuse to even acknowledge you IN CHURCH.
Hypocripsy!
Thats nothing. I hate it when I am not acknowledged in the liquor store.
I unfortunately don't have the ability to have that problem
You don't have a face!?
Maybe, but I can't buy liquor :(
For referenece purposes: Most, if not all states now have a minimum age to purchase alcohol of any type at 21. Yes at 18 I can vote and die for my country (no you make the other guy die for his country) and get married but I can't buy booze.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Smacks wrote:
You are misunderstanding me. If your only frame of reference is that of 'The subject' then subjectiveness loses all meaning, everything from beauty to right and wrong becomes distinctly objective.
No, that's false. Subjective determinations are not rendered objective by the assumption of stance independence.
Smacks wrote:
Considering that unethical is a word that means unethical I can prove through the intrinsic nature of words meaning what they mean, that it is in fact, not wrong.
If you're speaking only to the meaning of the word, and not its application (which was my understanding of your comment), then you are correct.
Smacks wrote:
If something is considered to be unethical then it is by definition considered to be unethical.
Sure, if you're using subjective terminology in the broad sense, in which case all things can be considered tacit to all things which they can possibly be characterized as. A system which entails the existence of unethical knees, and ethical squirrels.
The reason I told you to revisit the definition of ethical is that you don't appear to understand the distinction between "subjective" and "objective".
Smacks wrote:
Something might not be considered to be unethical by everyone, but everyone does consider something to be unethical.
I don't.
Smacks wrote:
I don't see how there can be any requirement to be objective within a question that contains no object.
The question was largely rhetorical anyway.
There isn't, but its fun to annoy people that seem to thin they have a unique window on the world.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Medium of Death wrote:I think you just need to take a deep breath and leave this thread if it's annoying you.
Yes I'm sorry everyone, I was getting annoyed, and tired, and felt like lots people were really taking what I said of the context in which it was meant.
Albatross wrote:I don't agree with this. If the subject is one's only frame of reference with regard to ethical questions, then the ethical position that said subject takes is inescapably subjective because inter-subjectivity means that an ethical standard can never be absolute.
Yes you are completely right. I don't know why I kept making this so complicated. The question was (roughly)...
'Can you condone something unethical, without being unethical yourself?
I agree that different people might have their own standards of what is Ethical, and that it is subjective. However anyone who can read the question can still answer it, based on their own standards of what they find ethical or unethical.
Kind of like a formula... Can x = y when x=/=y ? The values of x an y might change (in fact that's kind of expected), however the formula stays the same.
Like I said the question was largely rhetorical, since like the formula any answer of yes would appear contradictory. But I can't rule out that there might be some eccentric ethical constructs that might allow it.
Unfortunately the conversation seemed to devolve in semantics and equivocation and I'm sorry that I ever brought it up :(
All I was really trying to say was that I didn't personally view the pastafarian hat as a joke. If it does seem absurd, I think that is only because 'made up' religions are absurd. But not all of them are as light hearted as pastafarianism. Some preach dangerous hatred and intolerance. What is worse is some people really believe in them.
dogma wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Something might not be considered to be unethical by everyone, but everyone does consider something to be unethical.
I don't.
Not true, if you didn't find anything to be unethical then you would not be able to find anything ethical either or understand the concept of the word. You obviously do.
Smacks wrote:
I don't see how there can be any requirement to be objective within a question that contains no object.
The question was largely rhetorical anyway.
There isn't, but its fun to annoy people that seem to thin they have a unique window on the world.
Well I'm sorry I came across that way. I would really like to butt out off this topic now, so I won't be responding any more.
Thanks for the conversation, even if it was just to annoy me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/15 16:23:03
Smacks wrote:Not true, if you didn't find anything to be unethical then you would not be able to find anything ethical either or understand the concept of the word. You obviously do.
I know it's pedantic of me to point it out, but you can understand the concept of the word without subscribing to it.
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature.
1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2. to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.
#1 is easy, we do it all the time. If you believe that gambling is unethical, but overlook your neighbor's weekly poker game, you are condoning that behavior.
#3 is easy as well, since we do this all the time also. The Christian concept of forgiveness is centered on pardoning or forgiving transgressions.
#2 is the more difficult one, but I think it's also something we do regularly. There are actions that we consider unethical if we do it ourselves (for example, I think it would be unethical to represent someone who confessed to me that he murdered his family), but we not only condone, but consider ethical, when others do so (I think it's ethical for someone to represent someone who murdered his family).
Another example are those who consider capitalism "unethical," yet continue to support the capitalist system by purchasing or producing goods under capitalism. By their silence, they are affording tacit approval to the system.
TrollPie wrote:When someone provides a good reason for taking Christianity/Islam/Hinduism etc more seriously than Pastafarianism, I'll have a better view on organised religion.
Now they hatin'.
when i meet an atheist/agnostic at school i generally just nod politely when i get preached to. When they ask me what I am, and I reply christian, i get reamed and called stupid and ignorant. This has been my experience with at least 3/4 atheists/agnostics that I meet. Not all are bad, i have met some who agree to disagree, but are annyoing
Well sorry that you have so many douches in your area. I don't agree with religion but I don't try to convince every theist I meet to be atheistic.
Coolyo294 wrote: You are a strange, strange little manchicken.
annyoing
Frigian 582nd 
