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.

 dogma wrote:

No, its an acronym, because what you're describing is literally what an acronym is.

An acronym is a word composed of the first letter of each word of a longer phrase or statement.

NGS is an acronym. Nat Geo Soc is an abbreviation. NSDAP is an acronym. Nazi is an abbreviation.

 dogma wrote:

I'm aware. This draws back to the initial point of this exchange which was the divide between inevitability and acceptability.

Yes, but again, you don't seem to be aware of the subtle difference of electing to add to one's own culture voluntarily and having it forced on you. One enriches the culture. The other incites resistance.

 dogma wrote:

Hmm, forgot about that. Well, no point in restraint then.

Yes, because getting rude is always a good way to distract people from being caught in a lie.

 dogma wrote:

That's ad populum.

And that's false cause, as you assume that because I refer to popular opinion that I necessarily state it to be an objective truth..

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Not really. He didn't claim the objective truth of what he was claiming. An appeal by popularity can be a good supporting argument if it's simply to give credence to a tentative position.

He prior claimed objective truth by way of the phrase "immoral acts". The following statement was ad populum because of the absolute nature of the initial claim.

You guys are all sound like a Woody Allen movie to me now:

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=IFjttC_AGsU

 dogma wrote:

He prior claimed objective truth by way of the phrase "immoral acts". The following statement was ad populum because of the absolute nature of the initial claim.

Behold the straw man!

Actually, the initial claim was that it would shock and upset a hypothetical average American to to see for themselves acts that were being committed in their name which would generally be considered by that group to be immoral. I then used the term immoral acts in reference to this, not that the immorality of the acts was absolute. (though, in all fairness to dogma, most cultures consider the acts in question to be immoral, unless one is a moral relativist or an objectivist, so it's easy to assume I'm talking in absolutes.)

Melissia wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's as much an insult as using Franco is a compliment. Which is not. Your reaching.

No, but you are lying, both to me and yourself.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that you DO use "Francophone" as a compliment, much like many people here would use "speaks English" as a compliment when talking about immigrants.

Melissia, your line of thinking here really is incorrect. As a 100%-not-French-in-any-way-what-so-ever-West-Coast-Canadian, I can assure you that Anglophone and Francophone are neither complimentary nor derogatory; but merely statements of fact. You really are reaching here, and I cannot figure out why. There are so many other threads wherein you can take offense to something with so much less effort.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:You were goIng along good there until that very last line: soggy fries are gross.

That means they've been prepared incorrectly!

The fries shall be crispy, and then covered in beef gravy and cheese curds! If the fries have been cut thin and cooked properly, then they shall remain (reasonably) crispy until you are finished eating.

A common mistake is cutting the fries too thick, in which case they become soggy.

If your ever in Quebec, and goes to Quebec city, try some Ashton poutine. It's addictive to the point you'll dream about it.

Quebec City is less likely, but there is a decent chance I'll find myself near Montreal this winter. (I calculate I will not have trouble finding a decent poutine.)

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, the truth of it is that we really don't even do that. Kovnik Obama is something of a rarity, as very few Canadians use the term "Anglo" or "Anglophone" at all; we really just use the term "Francophone" when referring to a French-speaking person, and just otherwise assume that being an English speaker is the default in Canada.

...and THAT, ladies and gentlement, is how you insult a Canadian Francophone without saying anything derogatory or untrue.

And justify our impression that we are not part of the canadian culture.

Or course, Anglo is in much more common use in Quebec, were we assume 'Quebecer' immediatly refers to French-canadians. Weird, eh, how we both seem to be living in distinct cultural world ?

I've always said that Quebec should be given official status as a distinct society. Same with BC, Alberta, Sask., etc. Pretty much everyone except for the maritimes. They can all share one status.

As for "Canadian Culture", I don't have a reasonable method of defining it, so it's tough for me to exclude people.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Azazel I think you just eat your poutine at a dangerously fast speed!

You would too if you found yourself a well-made, delicious poutine!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Behold the straw man!

No, not really.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Actually, the initial claim was that it would shock and upset a hypothetical average American to to see for themselves acts that were being committed in their name which would generally be considered by that group to be immoral.

Here's what you wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
He should be deeply disturbed, because the same men running his country are also the men who tell CIA operatives to pay mercs to slaughter villages as part of false flag operations.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

You're that divorced from morality and ethics that you actually ask that question?

The bold is in reference to me.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

If the idea that people would not find being shown the immoral acts of their government disturbing is the result of ten years of studying ethics and morality, I would have to ask, where at, the Objectivist Institute?

Emphasis mine, of course. But all of what you wrote implies a claim to absolutism.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I then used the term immoral acts in reference to this, not that the immorality of the acts was absolute. (though, in all fairness to dogma, most cultures consider the acts in question to be immoral, unless one is a moral relativist or an objectivist, so it's easy to assume I'm talking in absolutes.)

I'm not assuming anything, you are plainly speaking as an absolutist. The fact that you clearly know nothing about relativism or objectivism (Good God, am I really defending it?) only adds to the point.

Newfoundland is distinct. It even has it's own incomprehensible language: Newfinese.

 dogma wrote:

No, not really.

Yes really.

Here's the original assertion quote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Because people would get pissed off about it. People who matter would have to get out of bed and address angry citizens over a bunch of dirty indians. And if local news doesn't cover it, the national news or foreign media most likely will never hear about it. So it never happened. John Q Public goes home to his 2.5 children and his white picket fence and isn't disturbed by the sight of his country's police clubbing little children with batons. He's also not disturbed by any number of wars his country illegally runs on the side, secret prisons, and the deliberate destabilization of democracies not friendly to US interests.

By posting everything BUT that actual assertion, you're committing a classic strawman fallacy, as it changes the meaning of what follows.

 dogma wrote:

I'm not assuming anything, you are plainly speaking as an absolutist. The fact that you clearly know nothing about relativism or objectivism (Good God, am I really defending it?) only adds to the point.

Technically that's argumentum ad hominem based on an assertion that basically boils down to a false appeal to authority, as we can no more see proof of your credentials as we can see of mine [this is the internet after all].

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:

No, its an acronym, because what you're describing is literally what an acronym is.

An acronym is a word composed of the first letter of each word of a longer phrase or statement.

NGS is an acronym. Nat Geo Soc is an abbreviation. NSDAP is an acronym. Nazi is an abbreviation.

That isn't right either. An acronym has to spell its own word, such as Scuba or NASA, whereas NGS is an initialism. Initialisms don't spell anything: FBI, CIA, GE, ect.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's as much an insult as using Franco is a compliment. Which is not. Your reaching.

No, but you are lying, both to me and yourself.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that you DO use "Francophone" as a compliment, much like many people here would use "speaks English" as a compliment when talking about immigrants.

Melissia, your line of thinking here really is incorrect. As a 100%-not-French-in-any-way-what-so-ever-West-Coast-Canadian, I can assure you that Anglophone and Francophone are neither complimentary nor derogatory; but merely statements of fact.

That's not in question.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

By posting everything BUT that actual assertion, you're committing a classic strawman fallacy, as it changes the meaning of what follows.

No, I posted everything but the original assertion because the original assertion is a long-winded version of what I posted*. You're still taking an absolutist stand by presuming the only reason your hypothetical "white picket fence" guy is not horrified is because he doesn't know.

*Hint: the construction of a strawman requires misrepresentation.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Technically that's argumentum ad hominem based on an assertion that basically boils down to a false appeal to authority, as we can no more see proof of your credentials as we can see of mine [this is the internet after all].

That isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem would be something like "X clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, because X plays with little metal men."

That also isn't an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority would be something like "You're wrong because that guy says so." or "You're wrong because I'm an expert and I know this." I'm not claiming to be an expert, I'm simply stating that you don't understand relativism or objectivism.

 Ahtman wrote:


That isn't right either. An acronym has to spell its own word, such as Scuba or NASA, whereas NGS is an initialism. Initialisms don't spell anything: FBI, CIA, GE, ect.

When SCUBA and NASA came about, they didn't spell anything either. Acronyms don't come about because they use initials to spell words. HUA is a good example, though how you say it differs between the army and marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
You're still taking an absolutist stand by presuming the only reason your hypothetical "white picket fence" guy is not horrified is because he doesn't know.

*Hint: the construction of a strawman requires misrepresentation.

And omission is a form of misrepresentation. And, no, it's because he doesn't see it himself. As I also said, there's a difference between abstractly knowing something and seeing it yourself.

 dogma wrote:


That isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem would be something like "X clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, because X plays with little metal men."

That also isn't an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority would be something like "You're wrong because that guy says so." or "You're wrong because I'm an expert and I know this." I'm not claiming to be an expert, I'm simply stating that you don't understand relativism or objectivism.

No, in this case it is: 'X doesn't know anything about it, because I say he does not know about y and I've studied y for ten years.'

You're presenting yourself as an authority, as you declare I am ignorant without a basis for that assertion other than your own opinion.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And omission is a form of misrepresentation.

Right, so your understanding of an argument that isn't a strawman is one that does not consider relevance?

Wow, and I thought academic articles were already too long. I wonder what they'll look like when they start block quoting each other in their entirety?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And, no, it's because he doesn't see it himself. As I also said, there's a difference between abstractly knowing something and seeing it yourself.

There is, but the distinction you're creating implies that someone who saw X would perceive X as immoral because they saw it, but not because they knew about it. And, further, that seeing X is somehow closer to reality than merely knowing about X*.


*This is almost certainly why you're an absolutist, by the way.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

No, in this case it is: 'X doesn't know anything about it, because I say he does not know about y and I've studied y for ten years.'

You're presenting yourself as an authority, as you declare I am ignorant without a basis for that assertion other than your own opinion.

I didn't leverage my authority (and I could have). Notice how you had to use a conjunction to make your "point"?

Anyway, I could have been more detailed had you used the words "relativist" and "objectivist" as anything other than scoffs; which in itself is problematic given the context.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:


That isn't right either. An acronym has to spell its own word, such as Scuba or NASA, whereas NGS is an initialism. Initialisms don't spell anything: FBI, CIA, GE, ect.

When SCUBA and NASA came about, they didn't spell anything either.

The criteria isn't, wasn't, and not proposed to be that they were words beforehand, but that they can be pronounced as words. You can say scuba and NASA as words, and people do all the time, but FBI and CIA are not pronounced as words, they are just reiterations of the first letters. This isn't really that complicated a concept.

 dogma wrote:

Right, so your understanding of an argument that isn't a strawman is one that does not consider relevance?

Wow, and I thought academic articles were already too long. I wonder what they'll look like when they start block quoting each other in their entirety?

Usually the threat of peer review keeps the amount of misrepresentation down, in theory. However, since you've been trying to misrepresent in order to make it easier to prove your point, that does, in fact, make it a straw man.

 dogma wrote:

There is, but the distinction you're creating implies that someone who saw X would perceive X as immoral because they saw it, but not because they knew about it. And, further, that seeing X is somehow closer to reality than merely knowing about X*.


*This is almost certainly why you're an absolutist, by the way.

To put it bluntly, that's not universalism or relativism, it's based in how human being experience the world through their senses. See, the more the brain is engaged, the more 'real' the brain perceives the experience to be.

The words:

'More than 4,000 slave laborers were burnt alive in their living quarters or were shot as they attempted to escape'

does not have the same impact as seeing, say, this:



and the picture itself is but a dim shadow of seeing something like it in person. This has nothing to do with philosophy, it has to do with sensory neuroscience.

Admittedly, this is an anecdote, but when Patton liberated Ohrdruf, he took the mayor of the town and his wife and (along with other able bodied people in the town)forced them to dig graves for the camp victims. That night the mayor and his wife hanged themselves. The suicide note they left said simply "We didn't know! - but we knew."

You can argue all the philosophy about abstract knowledge being more or less 'real' than seeing it yourself, but I think that says all that needs to be said about the truth of it.

 dogma wrote:

I didn't leverage my authority (and I could have). Notice how you had to use a conjunction to make your "point"?

I got tired of block quoting you, but since you insist...

 dogma wrote:

...having studied ethics and morality for the better part of a decade, I'm well aware of how much of it people assume, rather than reason.

 dogma wrote:

Anyway, I could have been more detailed had you used the words "relativist" and "objectivist" as anything other than scoffs; which in itself is problematic given the context.

As an example, from the relative perspective of the Nazis, all that genocide was morally acceptable as it was purging the world of inferior beings who were parasitizing resources they felt they could better use. From an objectivist standpoint, that act was morally acceptable as it was in the enlightened self interest of the nazis to scapegoat someone in order to advance themselves and realize their personal goals.

Anyone want to tell me that they feel those acts were what the average human being would recognize as moral and justified?

Personally, I feel that both are simply crude justifications for those acts and, I believe I am not in the minority here, find the idea repellant and vile.

Alright you guys. You gone full Nazi and everything.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Alright you guys. You gone full Nazi and everything.

Sorry, he got me going on relativism.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Usually the threat of peer review keeps the amount of misrepresentation down, in theory. However, since you've been trying to misrepresent in order to make it easier to prove your point, that does, in fact, make it a straw man.

You could have just said "You're misrepresenting my point!" again, it would have taken fewer words and meant exactly the same thing.

 dogma wrote:

To put it bluntly, that's not universalism or relativism, it's based in how human being experience the world through their senses. See, the more the brain is engaged, the more 'real' the brain perceives the experience to be.

Which is not something that I denied. What I stated was that you are beginning from an assumed set of morals, and further claiming that its only distance that prevents dissenters from agreeing with you.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

This has nothing to do with philosophy, it has to do with sensory neuroscience.

No, its philosophy (Which, by the by, connects tightly with neuroscience.)

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I got tired of block quoting you, but since you insist...

You've never block quoted me, and I doubt you know what a block quote actually is.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Anyone want to tell me that they feel those acts were what the average human being would recognize as moral and justified?

Lots of average human beings obviously felt they were moral, and justified. Because, you know, they perpetrated the relevant acts.

And, by the way, both statements you made were absolutist, not relativist*; though you could make the case for objectivism**.

*Though it wouldn't be hard to make them relativist as the distinction between the two is really weak.
**Were objectivism not a defined thing.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Sorry, he got me going on relativism.

Which I'm guessing you once read a book on in high school, and now feel quite strongly that you understand what it is.

 dogma wrote:

Which is not something that I denied. What I stated was that you are beginning from an assumed set of morals, and further claiming that its only distance that prevents dissenters from agreeing with you.

Well, yes, the fact that I refer to John Q Public, the hypothetical American everyman, does mean that a certain set of broad morals can be assumed.

 dogma wrote:

No, its philosophy (Which, by the by, connects tightly with neuroscience.)

I better make sure that my brain surgeon hasn't been reading Atlas Shrugged recently, then.

It is, after all, called neuroscience. That means that it runs on publicly verifiable evidence rather than philosophy, which runs on reason (usually).

 dogma wrote:

You've never block quoted me, and I doubt you know what a block quote actually is.

Technically, it's not me, it's the forum software, but each of these quotations from your posts qualifies as a block quote as long as it contains more than four lines and has a distinguishing font variation [in the case of this forum, the font is marginally smaller]. At least one of which has been longer than the required four lines.

 dogma wrote:

Lots of average human beings obviously felt they were moral, and justified. Because, you know, they perpetrated the relevant acts.

And, by the way, both statements you made were absolutist, not relativist*; though you could make the case for objectivism**.

*Though it wouldn't be hard to make them relativist as the distinction between the two is really weak.
**Were objectivism not a defined thing.

Assuming that the points you are referring to are the statements about the nazis, no, they were not, as an absolutist statement about the morality of it would have involved an axis mundi or absolute truth that was independent of their perception and circumstance.

And, by the way, again, nice false cause. Just because they did something does not mean they necessarily felt it was justified or moral. Did you know that other than Mengele, most of the Auschwitz doctors, according to several accounts, made it a point to be drunk before the trains arrived? The 6th Army chaplains balked at the number of soldiers visiting them when forced to assist the einsatzgruppen and actually wrote letters of protest: "In the case in question, measures against women and children were undertaken which in no way differ from atrocities carried out by the enemy about which the troops are continually being informed". Sadly, while many officers up the chain of command agreed and ordered the execution of children halted, these orders were countermanded by General Walther von Reichenau, the 6th Army's overall CO.

Here's one soldier's take on it:

"I went to the woods alone. The Wehrmacht had already dug a grave. The children were brought along in a tractor. I had nothing to do with this technical procedure. The Ukrainians were standing around trembling. The children were taken down from the tractor. They were lined up along the top of the grave and shot so that they fell into it. The Ukrainians did not aim at any particular part of the body. They fell into the grave. The wailing was indescribable. I shall never forget the scene throughout my life. I find it very hard to bear. I particularly remember a small fair-haired girl who took me by the hand. She too was shot later ... "

Some people involved actually had no idea what was going on. The testimony from the men who delivered the gas chamber doors would have been hilarious if it was not so tragic.

 dogma wrote:

Which I'm guessing you once read a book on in high school, and now feel quite strongly that you understand what it is.

Apparently better than you do, as I at least knew that it's different from absolutism by the absence of a fixed 'truth'.

 Manchu wrote:
Brown brick provisions are hardly the same as one pertaining to language.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

And you know what? Have the money, who cares. I don't have a problem helping my fellow Canadians anyway.

That is precisely the point, well said.

But but brown bricks are EVILLLLL!!!! ed bricks are where its at.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Well, yes, the fact that I refer to John Q Public, the hypothetical American everyman, does mean that a certain set of broad morals can be assumed.

No, it really doesn't. When people start saying "Americans believe..." or "John Q Public says..." without statistical evidence they're essentially just projecting.

Again, you're very clearly speaking as an absolutist, you just don't know it, or won't admit it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I better make sure that my brain surgeon hasn't been reading Atlas Shrugged recently, then.

It is, after all, called neuroscience. That means that it runs on publicly verifiable evidence rather than philosophy, which runs on reason (usually).

Right. You very clearly do not understand what philosophy is. It isn't just about "reason" its about argument and evidence and, most importantly, logic. This is not just reason, it is the ability to construct a position which stands up to scrutiny that is essentially mathematical. This dovetails nicely into what we're discussing regarding neuroscience. If your brain surgeon hasn't read Atlas Shrugged (I love how you keep implying I'm an Objectivist by the way.) then you shouldn't be worried, but if he hasn't read anything by Searle then there might be a problem.

At least assuming he's a neuroscientist, and not 'just' a brain surgeon. There is a difference.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Technically, it's not me, it's the forum software, but each of these quotations from your posts qualifies as a block quote as long as it contains more than four lines and has a distinguishing font variation [in the case of this forum, the font is marginally smaller]. At least one of which has been longer than the required four lines.

I've not seen many block quotes that are headed by the author's name.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Assuming that the points you are referring to are the statements about the nazis, no, they were not, as an absolutist statement about the morality of it would have involved an axis mundi or absolute truth that was independent of their perception and circumstance.

First, that's not what the phrase "Axis Mundi" means.

Second, while your statement about absolutism is true, you're still using "relativism" and "objectivism" as scoffs rather than choosing to engage the concepts.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And, by the way, again, nice false cause. Just because they did something does not mean they necessarily felt it was justified or moral.

Well, they did need to believe it was justified but that's beside the point.

Lots of people did a thing, and even if not all of them thought it was moral, at least some of them must have.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Some people involved actually had no idea what was going on.

That's nice, but not relevant.

 dogma wrote:

No, it really doesn't. When people start saying "Americans believe..." or "John Q Public says..." without statistical evidence they're essentially just projecting.

Again, you're very clearly speaking as an absolutist, you just don't know it, or won't admit it.

Well, if you want to read the statistics of the 'Average American'...

43. The average American believes in God without a doubt (59%).

General Social Survey

Assuming because they capitalize it they're referring to the Judeo-Christian one (technically also the same one in Islam), I'd say it is a fairly safe gamble that they broadly follow Christian ethics.

 dogma wrote:

Right. You very clearly do not understand what philosophy is. It isn't just about "reason" its about argument and evidence and, most importantly, logic. This is not just reason, it is the ability to construct a position which stands up to scrutiny that is essentially mathematical.

Except that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. I draw your attention to the archer's paradox. Logically the arrow would have to pass through an infinite number of half distances, and thus, never reach the target. In the real world, it's not really bothered by that. If by 'absolutist' you mean 'someone who sticks to reality as closely as possible' then, yes, guilty as charged.

 dogma wrote:

I've not seen many block quotes that are headed by the author's name.

You see them all over the internet. And also in quite a few papers published online.

 dogma wrote:

First, that's not what the phrase "Axis Mundi" means.

I am aware it means 'axis of the world' but in the case of absolutism.universalism it's the correct term for the fixed constant, or 'truth'.

 dogma wrote:

Second, while your statement about absolutism is true, you're still using "relativism" and "objectivism" as scoffs rather than choosing to engage the concepts.

What's there to engage?

 dogma wrote:

Well, they did need to believe it was justified but that's beside the point.

Lots of people did a thing, and even if not all of them thought it was moral, at least some of them must have.

See, that's the problem, you're assuming that 'lots of people' were directly involved and that no compartmentalization existed. Auschwitz was a camp that went through over 7k personnel in it's existence, but only 800 of them had an active role, and were housed on site and segregated from the rest. Contrary to what you see in movies, most of the guards had little direct contact with prisoners outside riots and escape attempts. That least one of Germany's espionage organizations were even successfully kept in the dark for a while (and when they did find out, they went into the business of smuggling Jews out of Europe as long as they could). Many pogroms were covered up from the public as suppressing 'partisans'.

I will grant there were those men who, may or may not have seen it as moral or ethical, but certainly enjoyed their work.



Rapist. Pedophile. Necrophiliac. Sadist. And those were just the charges the SS could prove. Out of all the people sent to the camps, he was sadly one of the few in my opinion that really belonged there. Instead, they pulled him out of the camps and made him a Obersturmführer (over the protests of many SS officers claiming he was 'too cruel'). He in turn, emptied Germany's prisons of the worst scum he could lay hands on, and turned them loose on Eastern Europe. Thieves. Murderers. Deserters. Rapists. Madmen. Poachers and Traitors who turned in their own families to stay out of the camps. Men convicted of crimes 'no less than murder' were sent there from other units to avoid being executed. SS-Sonderbatallion "Dirlewanger" initially started off modest, burning over 30,000 people alive (fire was a favorite of theirs) in their first 8 months. Dirlewanger himself was investigated for raping and murdering female jews by the SS again at this point. Most military's would have hanged him at this point.

Instead, they promoted him and sent him to liquidate Warsaw. Dirlewanger personally led the Wola Hospital massacre, slaughtering their way through the wards. They left none alive. Patients, nurses, doctors, all raped and butchered.

So, tell me what possible good is a philosophy in which it is possible to justify such an act? You say that I should engage those philosophies, but I can say that I have seen them applied, and each time, the result has been cruelty and horror.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Assuming because they capitalize it they're referring to the Judeo-Christian one (technically also the same one in Islam), I'd say it is a fairly safe gamble that they broadly follow Christian ethics.

First, the reported number was 59% (Where they got this I don't know, GSS 2010 says 63%.). That was the basis for establishing "average" which, in the case of the article, means "most".

Second, that the word "god" was capitalized references only the question as constructed, not the response given.

Third, "Christian ethics" are not homogeneous. It is quite possible to be fine with children being killed while believing oneself to be a Christian.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Except that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. I draw your attention to the archer's paradox. Logically the arrow would have to pass through an infinite number of half distances, and thus, never reach the target. In the real world, it's not really bothered by that.

You mean "Zeno's Arrow Paradox", the Archer's Paradox is very different.

And, interestingly enough, the arrow will never reach the target if the target is defined very narrowly. It is only by abstraction that the target can be approached, or even exist.

I suggest you look up what a continuous series is.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

You see them all over the internet. And also in quite a few papers published online.

I've never seen one, and I read lots of academics journals.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I am aware it means 'axis of the world' but in the case of absolutism.universalism it's the correct term for the fixed constant, or 'truth'.

No it isn't. The phrase "axis mundi" has a very specific meaning and context which has no bearing on the matter of absolutism versus not absolutism.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

See, that's the problem, you're assuming that 'lots of people' were directly involved and that no compartmentalization existed.

Lots of people were directly involved, and I'm not assuming that compartmentalization didn't exist.

You seem to be trying to convince yourself that people are intrinsically good (read: what you want them to be) which is odd given your previous stance of paranoia.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

You say that I should engage those philosophies, but I can say that I have seen them applied, and each time, the result has been cruelty and horror

You should engage them, because you clearly have absolutely no grasp of what they entail. Seriously, you would have a better idea of relativism and objectivism if you read the Wikipedia articles.

You come off as someone who is very bitter about something, but the reality is that no one cares unless you can express that bitterness in a way which is well-informed and sensible; least of all me. I would beat you with a pool cue till you got detached retinas, but only for 3 bucks (2 bucks is the friend price). Not because I'm objectivist, or relativist, but because I'm a selfish, materialist donkey-cave who gives absolutely no feth about anyone that isn't family, sex partner, or someone whose retinas I would detach for free. That's a facet of my personality, not the philosophies you've mentioned.

 dogma wrote:

Third, "Christian ethics" are not homogeneous. It is quite possible to be fine with children being killed while believing oneself to be a Christian.

Well, yes, we all know delusional and sociopathic people exist. Hell, the internet is full of them. And, yes, there are variances, but there are also absolutes. They're not called the Ten Suggestions.

Ok, then, let me try another way of describing it: If relativism is true, and from my perspective there is an absolute truth, that means under relativism it's true, and therefor relativism is false. Does that argument make sense to you?

 dogma wrote:

You mean "Zeno's Arrow Paradox", the Archer's Paradox is very different.

And, interestingly enough, the arrow will never reach the target if the target is defined very narrowly. It is only by abstraction that the target can be approached, or even exist.

I suggest you look up what a continuous series is.

Sorry, I meant fletcher's paradox (I remembered it had something to do with archery)
And yet, in the real world, I have little trouble hitting the target with an arrow. Which was the point. As 'pure reason' it makes sense, but it does not match the real world. I suggest you look into what a geometric series is, as geometric convergence takes place when r=1/2.

 dogma wrote:

No it isn't. The phrase "axis mundi" has a very specific meaning and context which has no bearing on the matter of absolutism versus not absolutism.

While it can mean the location where a higher plane touches the Earth, it is also an 'absolute truth' or a fixed point of reference, something that cannot exist in relativism.

 dogma wrote:

You seem to be trying to convince yourself that people are intrinsically good (read: what you want them to be) which is odd given your previous stance of paranoia.

What is funny is that you seem to keep thinking you understand me. Good and evil are both intrinsic to people. Some people are more one way, some more the other.

 dogma wrote:

You come off as someone who is very bitter about something, but the reality is that no one cares unless you can express that bitterness in a way which is well-informed and sensible; least of all me. I would beat you with a pool cue till you got detached retinas, but only for 3 bucks (2 bucks is the friend price). Not because I'm objectivist, or relativist, but because I'm a selfish, materialist donkey-cave who gives absolutely no feth about anyone that isn't family, sex partner, or someone whose retinas I would detach for free. That's a facet of my personality, not the philosophies you've mentioned.

So, the fundamental problem is not with my argument, but with the fact that your 'reason' is divorced from empathy, as you've just demonstrated. This does clear up for me the reason you failed to understand a few of my arguments.

And how is beating people with a pool cue 'well informed and sensible'? (FYI, based on previous attempts, it would actually qualify as 'ignorant and foolish').

As far as my bitterness, it's because the world has too many selfish materialist donkey-caves. The sad part is that many of you are so short sighted that you lose out and never even know it. People keep telling me that wretched specimens like yourself can be salvaged, but frankly, as far as I can see, none of you want to be. You're content to remain small, selfish beings that scurry about until you die and are forgotten. The problem is that you actively resist any effort on the part of others to improve the lot of humanity as a whole. Rather than say 'Oh, my, we should do something about that', you're response is 'What's in it for me?'

Charles Dickens wrote:
"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''
"Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''
"They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir.''
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?''
"Nothing!'' Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?''
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''
"If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''
"But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.
"It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Well, yes, we all know delusional and sociopathic people exist. Hell, the internet is full of them. And, yes, there are variances, but there are also absolutes. They're not called the Ten Suggestions.

Its almost as if there didn't exist thousands of pages discussing the meaning, and correct translation, of the Ten Commandments. I mean I suppose they're absolutes in the sense that they exist in a factual sense. That is, there exists a series of words referred to as "the Ten Commandments", but that's pretty much it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Ok, then, let me try another way of describing it: If relativism is true, and from my perspective there is an absolute truth, that means under relativism it's true, and therefor relativism is false. Does that argument make sense to you?

Relativism does not imply that all things said by everyone, everywhere are true. Moral relativism implies the absence of absolute moral truth. You can have moral truths that are bound to a particular context, but any claim that such a truth extends beyond that context is mistaken.

 dogma wrote:

And yet, in the real world, I have little trouble hitting the target with an arrow. Which was the point. As 'pure reason' it makes sense, but it does not match the real world. I suggest you look into what a geometric series is, as geometric convergence takes place when r=1/2

It only makes sense according to logic if you accept the premises outlined by Zeno. If these premises are flawed then the argument, while still valid, is spurious outside illustrative use (which is basically why we still teach the Paradoxes*). It is interesting that you brought up convergence, because that's one of the common methods of resolving Zeno's Paradoxes.

I think the fundamental problem here is that you don't actually understand how the Paradoxes fit into modern philosophy, or even the basic concepts that underpin the discipline. For example, you've butchered the meaning of "logic" several times.


*Its also why we still teach the method of exhaustion.

 dogma wrote:

While it can mean the location where a higher plane touches the Earth, it is also an 'absolute truth' or a fixed point of reference, something that cannot exist in relativism.

No, that's wrong. An axis mundi is a point at which the heavens and the earth converge, or approach convergence. It has nothing to do with absolute truth by necessity because it serves only as a means of connecting to whatever might pass from a higher realm. It is an absolute truth in the sense that a fact is, not in the sense that a moral concept is.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

What is funny is that you seem to keep thinking you understand me.

Of course I do, you remind me of nearly every first year student I ever had to teach.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

So, the fundamental problem is not with my argument, but with the fact that your 'reason' is divorced from empathy, as you've just demonstrated. This does clear up for me the reason you failed to understand a few of my arguments.

I understood them, they just weren't good. You can't simply cite a concept like empathy and then lean on it without elaborating as to why empathy should have any bearing. This is something you've done repeatedly, and quite unintentionally, regarding concepts that aren't limited to empathy. Its why I brought up absolutism in the first place.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

As far as my bitterness, it's because the world has too many selfish materialist donkey-caves. The sad part is that many of you are so short sighted that you lose out and never even know it. People keep telling me that wretched specimens like yourself can be salvaged, but frankly, as far as I can see, none of you want to be. You're content to remain small, selfish beings that scurry about until you die and are forgotten. The problem is that you actively resist any effort on the part of others to improve the lot of humanity as a whole. Rather than say 'Oh, my, we should do something about that', you're response is 'What's in it for me?'

Of course it is, because ultimately when people try to "improve humanity as a whole" what they're really talking about is making humanity more like what they want it to be. It isn't altruism motivating them, but selfishness that is masked by misleading terminology. I mean, the very fact that you're talking about "salvaging" people is pretty much indicative of a desire to mold the world into an image you find appealing.

Honestly, you come off as extremely self-important.

I can safely say you two's wall O quotes makes baby jebus cry.

and he cries in English and French. at the same time.

 dogma wrote:

Its almost as if there didn't exist thousands of pages discussing the meaning, and correct translation, of the Ten Commandments. I mean I suppose they're absolutes in the sense that they exist in a factual sense. That is, there exists a series of words referred to as "the Ten Commandments", but that's pretty much it.

There are also tens of thousands of pages discussing what the meaning of 'is' is. While I'm aware there is a great deal of discussion of such esoteric matters as pre and post Babylonian invasion variations (yes, there is such a thing) again, you're confusing academic and popular interpretations. Let me try further refining it so you can grasp it better: generally speaking, the largest denominations of Christians in the lower 48 states of the United States have a broadly similar interpretation of it.

 dogma wrote:

Relativism does not imply that all things said by everyone, everywhere are true. Moral relativism implies the absence of absolute moral truth. You can have moral truths that are bound to a particular context, but any claim that such a truth extends beyond that context is mistaken.

Ok, let me try it this way then: Lets take two groups of people, both of whom have different cultures. One culture includes slavery, one does not. If moral relativism is true, how do you compare the morality of ownership of slaves between those two cultures?

It's not that universalism doesn't break down in places as well, but it at least gives a common reference point.

 dogma wrote:

No, that's wrong. An axis mundi is a point at which the heavens and the earth converge, or approach convergence. It has nothing to do with absolute truth by necessity because it serves only as a means of connecting to whatever might pass from a higher realm. It is an absolute truth in the sense that a fact is, not in the sense that a moral concept is.

So, you're claiming that all arguments from Christian philosophers against relativism are wrong, on the grounds that they view the axis mundi not merely as a fact but a moral concept (being that they equate the 'Absolute Truth' to God)?

 dogma wrote:

Of course I do, you remind me of nearly every first year student I ever had to teach.

Eh, I've been called worse. It's doubtful, and again, appeal to authority, but I have had worse comparisons.

 dogma wrote:

I understood them, they just weren't good. You can't simply cite a concept like empathy and then lean on it without elaborating as to why empathy should have any bearing. This is something you've done repeatedly, and quite unintentionally, regarding concepts that aren't limited to empathy. Its why I brought up absolutism in the first place.

If you don't think that empathy has baring on a discussion of philosophy and morality, you're forgetting that all philosophy eventually comes back to humanity. While there are aspects of philosophy that don't touch on it, such as the nature of reality and the 'reason' for existence, almost all of it comes back to humanity and the interrelationship between one another and the world around them. To say that some element of humanity has no bearing is to deny the underlying purpose of philosophy in general.

 dogma wrote:

Of course it is, because ultimately when people try to "improve humanity as a whole" what they're really talking about is making humanity more like what they want it to be. It isn't altruism motivating them, but selfishness that is masked by misleading terminology. I mean, the very fact that you're talking about "salvaging" people is pretty much indicative of a desire to mold the world into an image you find appealing.

Honestly, you come off as extremely self-important.

Yes, because thinking that humanity would be better off if people stopped being jerks and cooperated together in working toward the common good instead of screwing each other over all the time in the pursuit of material wealth is terribly selfish of me and I should be spanked. I would, most likely, only need to find a new job.

I find your response rather telling in the implication that there are people who do not want to mold the world into an image they find more appealing. It has been, after all, one of the major driving forces in human history, both for good or for ill. To not attempt to change things is to give up on finding a better way to do things and simply embrace stagnation and decline. I don't know if there's a philosophy on that off the top of my head, but I can say that, from my own study, acceptance of the status quo leads to terminal decline.

As far as my own self importance, thank you, I've been working on that.

And somehow, we progress from Canadian elections to moral [relativism|absolutism]? 'kay, good sign that the thread has lived longer than it should.

You know; relatively speaking.

But this is absolutely the end.