Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ideas you wish would disappear

Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What's an idea that you wish would disappear from the face of the earth? I'm not speaking about ideologies, but single ideas of smaller scale. For JMK for example, it's obviously fiscal stimulus.

For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think. My problem with it isn't as related to the validity of the hypothesis itself as it is to the amount of bickering that surrounds it. Whorf's work was widely disproved anyway - under his logic, the French treat pencils (le crayon) as boys and rulers (la regle) as girls (though, admittedly, the genders of le soleil and la lune were related to culture).

The thing is that in Hong Kong, apparently, every move to promote Putonghua (the standard version of Mandarin that serves as China's lingua franca) or to alter editorial standards so they are more in line with those of our Mainland neighbours is apparently some kind of evil communist plot to turn us all into Mongols. If you want to keep our language and culture, fine, write Cantonese slang dictionaries and don't stop speaking it. If you want to read classical poems in Cantonese to better retain the original tone patterns, fine, go ahead. If you want to keep translating Virginia as 'wai4 zan1 nei4 aa3 zau1' instead of 'fat1 gat1 nei4 aa3 zau1', fine, as long as your editor allows. Learning Putonghua and talking to Mainland tourists in it are not going to stop us from being proud Cantonese or make us submit to the CCP. The people who keep reminding us that Putonghua is a 'perverted' version of Chinese because they were heavily influenced by Mongols (and no, we didn't get retroflex consonants from the Mongols) are no better than those who accuse Southern dialects of being uncivilised.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 9:40:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think.

People badly misuse good things all the time. Even evolution has people trying to say some people are closer to monkeys than everyone else.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:16:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
What's an idea that you wish would disappear from the face of the earth? I'm not speaking about ideologies, but single ideas of smaller scale. For JMK for example, it's obviously fiscal stimulus.

For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think. My problem with it isn't as related to the validity of the hypothesis itself as it is to the amount of bickering that surrounds it. Whorf's work was widely disproved anyway - under his logic, the French treat pencils (le crayon) as boys and rulers (la regle) as girls (though, admittedly, the genders of le soleil and la lune were related to culture).

The thing is that in Hong Kong, apparently, every move to promote Putonghua (the standard version of Mandarin that serves as China's lingua franca) or to alter editorial standards so they are more in line with those of our Mainland neighbours is apparently some kind of evil communist plot to turn us all into Mongols. If you want to keep our language and culture, fine, write Cantonese slang dictionaries and don't stop speaking it. If you want to read classical poems in Cantonese to better retain the original tone patterns, fine, go ahead. If you want to keep translating Virginia as 'wai4 zan1 nei4 aa3 zau1' instead of 'fat1 gat1 nei4 aa3 zau1', fine, as long as your editor allows. Learning Putonghua and talking to Mainland tourists in it are not going to stop us from being proud Cantonese or make us submit to the CCP. The people who keep reminding us that Putonghua is a 'perverted' version of Chinese because they were heavily influenced by Mongols (and no, we didn't get retroflex consonants from the Mongols) are no better than those who accuse Southern dialects of being uncivilised.

I've a million.

1. The idea that humans are superior to non-human animals.
2. The idea of Young Earth Creationism.
3. The idea of Old Earth Creationism,
4. The idea of creationism.
5. The idea of theism.

That's just one-two hundred thousandth of it.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:17:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This one is gonna sound weird.

I'm not sure I wpild get rid of it entirely, but something that really bothers me is when people hold firm to an ideology so as to be intellectually consistent rather than listen to their own hearts. I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that moral systems are basically just used to rationalize pre existing opinions (this doesn't mean there isn't an objective morality, just that it's much more complex than any one system can tell us...it's complicated) so holding firm to one when it contradicts your conscience is annoying.

Libertarians are the worst in this regard. I actually tend to be pretty libertarian on many things, but more out of practicality rather than ethics. Holy sht, libertarian ethics are awful and libertarians also tend to be the type on intellectuals who believe strongly in logic and thus in the infallibility of a moral system that's essentially derived of logic. In reality things are so much more complex than that, I hold contradictory opinions all the time and I think if you don't you aren't being honest with yourself. Whether our ethics and positions are objectively true on some cosmic level is irrelevant because we will never know, so just live a little and relax if your conscience and Kant don't agree.

Oooh, that's another thing I hate, the emphasis on "reason". Logic is a really awesome tool, but that's all it is. It's a tool. We don't value human life because we are rational beings, this opens up so many ethical dilemmas (like how to treat the retarded). We value human life because we *do*. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that. Ultimately it comes from the quest for meaning and understanding.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:18:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 10:16:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
What's an idea that you wish would disappear from the face of the earth? I'm not speaking about ideologies, but single ideas of smaller scale. For JMK for example, it's obviously fiscal stimulus.

For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think. My problem with it isn't as related to the validity of the hypothesis itself as it is to the amount of bickering that surrounds it. Whorf's work was widely disproved anyway - under his logic, the French treat pencils (le crayon) as boys and rulers (la regle) as girls (though, admittedly, the genders of le soleil and la lune were related to culture).

The thing is that in Hong Kong, apparently, every move to promote Putonghua (the standard version of Mandarin that serves as China's lingua franca) or to alter editorial standards so they are more in line with those of our Mainland neighbours is apparently some kind of evil communist plot to turn us all into Mongols. If you want to keep our language and culture, fine, write Cantonese slang dictionaries and don't stop speaking it. If you want to read classical poems in Cantonese to better retain the original tone patterns, fine, go ahead. If you want to keep translating Virginia as 'wai4 zan1 nei4 aa3 zau1' instead of 'fat1 gat1 nei4 aa3 zau1', fine, as long as your editor allows. Learning Putonghua and talking to Mainland tourists in it are not going to stop us from being proud Cantonese or make us submit to the CCP. The people who keep reminding us that Putonghua is a 'perverted' version of Chinese because they were heavily influenced by Mongols (and no, we didn't get retroflex consonants from the Mongols) are no better than those who accuse Southern dialects of being uncivilised.

I've a million.

1. The idea that humans are superior to non-human animals.
2. The idea of Young Earth Creationism.
3. The idea of Old Earth Creationism,
4. The idea of creationism.
5. The idea of theism.

That's just one-two hundred thousandth of it.

you need Jesus, son
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:36:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh, also the idea that politicians using the word "folks" makes them sound down to earth and not the wallstreet worshipping corporate and ideological shills they are. Every time I hear a politician use the word "folks" it makes me want to commit treason just out of spite
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:41:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
None. Why would someone want to kill off an idea itself?
Think about it, for a second. If everyone on earth thought the same things, would not life become unbearably boring?
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:53:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 10:17:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
This one is gonna sound weird.

I'm not sure I wpild get rid of it entirely, but something that really bothers me is when people hold firm to an ideology so as to be intellectually consistent rather than listen to their own hearts. I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that moral systems are basically just used to rationalize pre existing opinions (this doesn't mean there isn't an objective morality, just that it's much more complex than any one system can tell us...it's complicated) so holding firm to one when it contradicts your conscience is annoying.

Libertarians are the worst in this regard. I actually tend to be pretty libertarian on many things, but more out of practicality rather than ethics. Holy sht, libertarian ethics are awful and libertarians also tend to be the type on intellectuals who believe strongly in logic and thus in the infallibility of a moral system that's essentially derived of logic. In reality things are so much more complex than that, I hold contradictory opinions all the time and I think if you don't you aren't being honest with yourself. Whether our ethics and positions are objectively true on some cosmic level is irrelevant because we will never know, so just live a little and relax if your conscience and Kant don't agree.

Oooh, that's another thing I hate, the emphasis on "reason". Logic is a really awesome tool, but that's all it is. It's a tool. We don't value human life because we are rational beings, this opens up so many ethical dilemmas (like how to treat the retarded). We value human life because we *do*. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that. Ultimately it comes from the quest for meaning and understanding.

Rand would hate you, lol.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:54:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Objectivism, laissez-faire capitalism, fundamentalism, racism, homophobia, sexism, neo-imperialism, nationalism, patriotism, neo-fascism
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:55:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 10:54:04 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Objectivism, laissez-faire capitalism, fundamentalism, racism, homophobia, sexism, neo-imperialism, nationalism, patriotism, neo-fascism

And yes, some of those are ideologies but I would like to see them die.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
That1User
Posts: 1,064
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:01:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 10:17:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
This one is gonna sound weird.

I'm not sure I wpild get rid of it entirely, but something that really bothers me is when people hold firm to an ideology so as to be intellectually consistent rather than listen to their own hearts. I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that moral systems are basically just used to rationalize pre existing opinions (this doesn't mean there isn't an objective morality, just that it's much more complex than any one system can tell us...it's complicated) so holding firm to one when it contradicts your conscience is annoying.

Libertarians are the worst in this regard. I actually tend to be pretty libertarian on many things, but more out of practicality rather than ethics. Holy sht, libertarian ethics are awful and libertarians also tend to be the type on intellectuals who believe strongly in logic and thus in the infallibility of a moral system that's essentially derived of logic. In reality things are so much more complex than that, I hold contradictory opinions all the time and I think if you don't you aren't being honest with yourself. Whether our ethics and positions are objectively true on some cosmic level is irrelevant because we will never know, so just live a little and relax if your conscience and Kant don't agree.

Oooh, that's another thing I hate, the emphasis on "reason". Logic is a really awesome tool, but that's all it is. It's a tool. We don't value human life because we are rational beings, this opens up so many ethical dilemmas (like how to treat the retarded). We value human life because we *do*. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that. Ultimately it comes from the quest for meaning and understanding.

This reminds me of what CS Lewis was saying in the Abolition of Man, that we are living in an age of "Men without chests" meaning that people will no longer live by objective moral values, but rather reason out of objective moral values and live by their desires instead of their metaphorical hearts.
"Our life is what our thoughts make it."
R13; Marcus Aurelius
"When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." -Marcus Aurelius
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do. "-Voltaire
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:06:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The notion that people that try their best are not entitled to success or respect.
The view that, in America, supporting a law does not equate to supporting an act. (e.g. supporting drug legalization does not mean I want to do drugs)
In America, supporting a law just because you derive a benefit from it.
My work here is, finally, done.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:07:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 9:40:48 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think.

People badly misuse good things all the time. Even evolution has people trying to say some people are closer to monkeys than everyone else.

I'm not sure the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is really a 'good' thing, especially in its 'hard' version (linguistic determinism), which makes little sense - under that logic, linguistic change would not take place. It is generally the opposite in fact - how we think shapes our language. (Not saying it's inherently a 'bad' thing either, of course... there's nothing wrong or evil about it.)

Also, it's a bit different from misusing evolution because most Americans aren't from Metapedia or Stormfront, I believe. However, the 'linguistic communisation' accusations are so widespread, nay ubiquitous here that it isn't even funny.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:14:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 10:16:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
What's an idea that you wish would disappear from the face of the earth? I'm not speaking about ideologies, but single ideas of smaller scale. For JMK for example, it's obviously fiscal stimulus.

For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think. My problem with it isn't as related to the validity of the hypothesis itself as it is to the amount of bickering that surrounds it. Whorf's work was widely disproved anyway - under his logic, the French treat pencils (le crayon) as boys and rulers (la regle) as girls (though, admittedly, the genders of le soleil and la lune were related to culture).

The thing is that in Hong Kong, apparently, every move to promote Putonghua (the standard version of Mandarin that serves as China's lingua franca) or to alter editorial standards so they are more in line with those of our Mainland neighbours is apparently some kind of evil communist plot to turn us all into Mongols. If you want to keep our language and culture, fine, write Cantonese slang dictionaries and don't stop speaking it. If you want to read classical poems in Cantonese to better retain the original tone patterns, fine, go ahead. If you want to keep translating Virginia as 'wai4 zan1 nei4 aa3 zau1' instead of 'fat1 gat1 nei4 aa3 zau1', fine, as long as your editor allows. Learning Putonghua and talking to Mainland tourists in it are not going to stop us from being proud Cantonese or make us submit to the CCP. The people who keep reminding us that Putonghua is a 'perverted' version of Chinese because they were heavily influenced by Mongols (and no, we didn't get retroflex consonants from the Mongols) are no better than those who accuse Southern dialects of being uncivilised.

I've a million.

1. The idea that humans are superior to non-human animals.
There is a plenty of ground for that actually. I'm not saying we're superior in all aspects - we're complete n00bs at earthquake detection compared to them - but I *do* believe we're the only species fully capable of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom, which are relatively undeveloped in other animals.
2. The idea of Young Earth Creationism.
3. The idea of Old Earth Creationism,
4. The idea of creationism.
While 2-4 may not stand up to scrutiny (I know nothing about the sciences, though, so I won't say they really don't), I don't see how they're actually *harmful* in a way that calls for disappearance.
5. The idea of theism.

That's just one-two hundred thousandth of it.
I hope you don't make too many enemies :P
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:17:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 11:14:26 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 10:16:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
What's an idea that you wish would disappear from the face of the earth? I'm not speaking about ideologies, but single ideas of smaller scale. For JMK for example, it's obviously fiscal stimulus.

For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think. My problem with it isn't as related to the validity of the hypothesis itself as it is to the amount of bickering that surrounds it. Whorf's work was widely disproved anyway - under his logic, the French treat pencils (le crayon) as boys and rulers (la regle) as girls (though, admittedly, the genders of le soleil and la lune were related to culture).

The thing is that in Hong Kong, apparently, every move to promote Putonghua (the standard version of Mandarin that serves as China's lingua franca) or to alter editorial standards so they are more in line with those of our Mainland neighbours is apparently some kind of evil communist plot to turn us all into Mongols. If you want to keep our language and culture, fine, write Cantonese slang dictionaries and don't stop speaking it. If you want to read classical poems in Cantonese to better retain the original tone patterns, fine, go ahead. If you want to keep translating Virginia as 'wai4 zan1 nei4 aa3 zau1' instead of 'fat1 gat1 nei4 aa3 zau1', fine, as long as your editor allows. Learning Putonghua and talking to Mainland tourists in it are not going to stop us from being proud Cantonese or make us submit to the CCP. The people who keep reminding us that Putonghua is a 'perverted' version of Chinese because they were heavily influenced by Mongols (and no, we didn't get retroflex consonants from the Mongols) are no better than those who accuse Southern dialects of being uncivilised.

I've a million.

1. The idea that humans are superior to non-human animals.
There is a plenty of ground for that actually. I'm not saying we're superior in all aspects - we're complete n00bs at earthquake detection compared to them - but I *do* believe we're the only species fully capable of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom, which are relatively undeveloped in other animals.

Benevolence? Yeah, sure, frying the Earth to hell, murdering each other, when we can't murder humans murder animals, and act like we're better. Objective morality differs from species to species. We're morons. Case closed.

2. The idea of Young Earth Creationism.
3. The idea of Old Earth Creationism,
4. The idea of creationism.
While 2-4 may not stand up to scrutiny (I know nothing about the sciences, though, so I won't say they really don't), I don't see how they're actually *harmful* in a way that calls for disappearance.

It's an idea I wish disappears.

5. The idea of religion and the violence caused by it.

That's just one-two hundred thousandth of it.
I hope you don't make too many enemies :P

Fix'd. But yeah :p
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:29:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 10:17:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
This one is gonna sound weird.

I'm not sure I wpild get rid of it entirely, but something that really bothers me is when people hold firm to an ideology so as to be intellectually consistent rather than listen to their own hearts. I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that moral systems are basically just used to rationalize pre existing opinions (this doesn't mean there isn't an objective morality, just that it's much more complex than any one system can tell us...it's complicated) so holding firm to one when it contradicts your conscience is annoying.

I agree. Liberals and conservatives tend not to be able to think out of the box. I hold many opinions from both sides.

'The superior man, in the world, does not set his mind either for anything, or against anything; what is right he will follow.' (Analects 4.10)

'There were four things from which the Master was entirely free. He had no foregone conclusions, no arbitrary predeterminations, no obstinacy, and no egoism.' (Analects 9.4)

Even those who are relatively in the right should not limit themselves to a single ideology:

'The principle of the philosopher Yang was "Each one for himself." Though he might have benefited the whole kingdom by plucking out a single hair, he would not have done it. The philosopher Mo loves all equally. If by rubbing smooth his whole body from the crown to the heel, he could have benefited the kingdom, he would have done it. Zi Mo holds a medium between these. By holding that medium, he is nearer the right. But by holding it without leaving room for the exigency of circumstances, it becomes like their holding their one point. The reason why I hate that holding to one point is the injury it does to the way of right principle. It takes up one point and disregards a hundred others.'

Libertarians are the worst in this regard. I actually tend to be pretty libertarian on many things, but more out of practicality rather than ethics. Holy sht, libertarian ethics are awful and libertarians also tend to be the type on intellectuals who believe strongly in logic and thus in the infallibility of a moral system that's essentially derived of logic. In reality things are so much more complex than that, I hold contradictory opinions all the time and I think if you don't you aren't being honest with yourself. Whether our ethics and positions are objectively true on some cosmic level is irrelevant because we will never know, so just live a little and relax if your conscience and Kant don't agree.
I agree. It is our hearts that we should follow, for they have the principles of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom infused into them. Develop them, and we can be great people. 'That whereby man differs from the lower animals is but small. The mass of people cast it away, while superior men preserve it. Shun clearly understood the multitude of things, and closely observed the relations of humanity. He walked along the path of benevolence and righteousness; he did not need to pursue benevolence and righteousness.' (Mencius 8.19)

Oooh, that's another thing I hate, the emphasis on "reason". Logic is a really awesome tool, but that's all it is. It's a tool. We don't value human life because we are rational beings, this opens up so many ethical dilemmas (like how to treat the retarded). We value human life because we *do*. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that. Ultimately it comes from the quest for meaning and understanding.
I agree with this as well.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:31:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 10:41:10 AM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
None. Why would someone want to kill off an idea itself?
Think about it, for a second. If everyone on earth thought the same things, would not life become unbearably boring?

That wasn't my intention, LOL. I think we all have pet peeves we wish would disappear (including you).
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:32:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 10:54:04 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Objectivism, laissez-faire capitalism, fundamentalism, racism, homophobia, sexism, neo-imperialism, nationalism, patriotism, neo-fascism

I'm also against the stuff in boldface. I don't know about objectivism simply because I still haven't figured out what it is exactly...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:33:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 11:06:59 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The notion that people that try their best are not entitled to success or respect.
The view that, in America, supporting a law does not equate to supporting an act. (e.g. supporting drug legalization does not mean I want to do drugs)
I have to concur with this. The function of the law is, essentially, to act as a tool that enforces morality, to complement education, which does not suffice for practical reasons.
In America, supporting a law just because you derive a benefit from it.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:37:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 11:17:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:14:26 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 10:16:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
What's an idea that you wish would disappear from the face of the earth? I'm not speaking about ideologies, but single ideas of smaller scale. For JMK for example, it's obviously fiscal stimulus.

For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think. My problem with it isn't as related to the validity of the hypothesis itself as it is to the amount of bickering that surrounds it. Whorf's work was widely disproved anyway - under his logic, the French treat pencils (le crayon) as boys and rulers (la regle) as girls (though, admittedly, the genders of le soleil and la lune were related to culture).

The thing is that in Hong Kong, apparently, every move to promote Putonghua (the standard version of Mandarin that serves as China's lingua franca) or to alter editorial standards so they are more in line with those of our Mainland neighbours is apparently some kind of evil communist plot to turn us all into Mongols. If you want to keep our language and culture, fine, write Cantonese slang dictionaries and don't stop speaking it. If you want to read classical poems in Cantonese to better retain the original tone patterns, fine, go ahead. If you want to keep translating Virginia as 'wai4 zan1 nei4 aa3 zau1' instead of 'fat1 gat1 nei4 aa3 zau1', fine, as long as your editor allows. Learning Putonghua and talking to Mainland tourists in it are not going to stop us from being proud Cantonese or make us submit to the CCP. The people who keep reminding us that Putonghua is a 'perverted' version of Chinese because they were heavily influenced by Mongols (and no, we didn't get retroflex consonants from the Mongols) are no better than those who accuse Southern dialects of being uncivilised.

I've a million.

1. The idea that humans are superior to non-human animals.
There is a plenty of ground for that actually. I'm not saying we're superior in all aspects - we're complete n00bs at earthquake detection compared to them - but I *do* believe we're the only species fully capable of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom, which are relatively undeveloped in other animals.

Benevolence? Yeah, sure, frying the Earth to hell, murdering each other, when we can't murder humans murder animals, and act like we're better. Objective morality differs from species to species. We're morons. Case closed.

'The tendency of man's nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as all water flows downwards. Now by striking water and causing it to leap up, you may make it go over your forehead, and, by damming and leading it you may force it up a hill - but are such movements according to the nature of water? It is the force applied which causes them. When men are made to do what is not good, their nature is dealt with in this way.' (Mencius 11.2)

2. The idea of Young Earth Creationism.
3. The idea of Old Earth Creationism,
4. The idea of creationism.
While 2-4 may not stand up to scrutiny (I know nothing about the sciences, though, so I won't say they really don't), I don't see how they're actually *harmful* in a way that calls for disappearance.

It's an idea I wish disappears.
Yeah, but it's not like you're really harmed by its existence, LOL. I know #1 does cause harm to animals, although those who believe we can treat animals in whatever way we want because of our superiority discards that which makes us superior to them in the first place, and are thus no different from animals.

5. The idea of religion and the violence caused by it.

That's just one-two hundred thousandth of it.
I hope you don't make too many enemies :P

Fix'd. But yeah :p

Actually, I meant you'll make a lot of enemies with 500k-1m ideas you want to disappear :P
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:39:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 11:37:49 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:17:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:14:26 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 10:16:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
What's an idea that you wish would disappear from the face of the earth? I'm not speaking about ideologies, but single ideas of smaller scale. For JMK for example, it's obviously fiscal stimulus.

For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think. My problem with it isn't as related to the validity of the hypothesis itself as it is to the amount of bickering that surrounds it. Whorf's work was widely disproved anyway - under his logic, the French treat pencils (le crayon) as boys and rulers (la regle) as girls (though, admittedly, the genders of le soleil and la lune were related to culture).

The thing is that in Hong Kong, apparently, every move to promote Putonghua (the standard version of Mandarin that serves as China's lingua franca) or to alter editorial standards so they are more in line with those of our Mainland neighbours is apparently some kind of evil communist plot to turn us all into Mongols. If you want to keep our language and culture, fine, write Cantonese slang dictionaries and don't stop speaking it. If you want to read classical poems in Cantonese to better retain the original tone patterns, fine, go ahead. If you want to keep translating Virginia as 'wai4 zan1 nei4 aa3 zau1' instead of 'fat1 gat1 nei4 aa3 zau1', fine, as long as your editor allows. Learning Putonghua and talking to Mainland tourists in it are not going to stop us from being proud Cantonese or make us submit to the CCP. The people who keep reminding us that Putonghua is a 'perverted' version of Chinese because they were heavily influenced by Mongols (and no, we didn't get retroflex consonants from the Mongols) are no better than those who accuse Southern dialects of being uncivilised.

I've a million.

1. The idea that humans are superior to non-human animals.
There is a plenty of ground for that actually. I'm not saying we're superior in all aspects - we're complete n00bs at earthquake detection compared to them - but I *do* believe we're the only species fully capable of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom, which are relatively undeveloped in other animals.

Benevolence? Yeah, sure, frying the Earth to hell, murdering each other, when we can't murder humans murder animals, and act like we're better. Objective morality differs from species to species. We're morons. Case closed.

'The tendency of man's nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as all water flows downwards. Now by striking water and causing it to leap up, you may make it go over your forehead, and, by damming and leading it you may force it up a hill - but are such movements according to the nature of water? It is the force applied which causes them. When men are made to do what is not good, their nature is dealt with in this way.' (Mencius 11.2)

Ipse dixit.


2. The idea of Young Earth Creationism.
3. The idea of Old Earth Creationism,
4. The idea of creationism.
While 2-4 may not stand up to scrutiny (I know nothing about the sciences, though, so I won't say they really don't), I don't see how they're actually *harmful* in a way that calls for disappearance.

It's an idea I wish disappears.
Yeah, but it's not like you're really harmed by its existence, LOL. I know #1 does cause harm to animals, although those who believe we can treat animals in whatever way we want because of our superiority discards that which makes us superior to them in the first place, and are thus no different from animals.

I extend all my arguments.


5. The idea of religion and the violence caused by it.

That's just one-two hundred thousandth of it.
I hope you don't make too many enemies :P

Fix'd. But yeah :p

Actually, I meant you'll make a lot of enemies with 500k-1m ideas you want to disappear :P

Yep.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:43:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 11:37:49 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:17:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:14:26 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 10:16:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
What's an idea that you wish would disappear from the face of the earth? I'm not speaking about ideologies, but single ideas of smaller scale. For JMK for example, it's obviously fiscal stimulus.

For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think. My problem with it isn't as related to the validity of the hypothesis itself as it is to the amount of bickering that surrounds it. Whorf's work was widely disproved anyway - under his logic, the French treat pencils (le crayon) as boys and rulers (la regle) as girls (though, admittedly, the genders of le soleil and la lune were related to culture).

The thing is that in Hong Kong, apparently, every move to promote Putonghua (the standard version of Mandarin that serves as China's lingua franca) or to alter editorial standards so they are more in line with those of our Mainland neighbours is apparently some kind of evil communist plot to turn us all into Mongols. If you want to keep our language and culture, fine, write Cantonese slang dictionaries and don't stop speaking it. If you want to read classical poems in Cantonese to better retain the original tone patterns, fine, go ahead. If you want to keep translating Virginia as 'wai4 zan1 nei4 aa3 zau1' instead of 'fat1 gat1 nei4 aa3 zau1', fine, as long as your editor allows. Learning Putonghua and talking to Mainland tourists in it are not going to stop us from being proud Cantonese or make us submit to the CCP. The people who keep reminding us that Putonghua is a 'perverted' version of Chinese because they were heavily influenced by Mongols (and no, we didn't get retroflex consonants from the Mongols) are no better than those who accuse Southern dialects of being uncivilised.

I've a million.

1. The idea that humans are superior to non-human animals.
There is a plenty of ground for that actually. I'm not saying we're superior in all aspects - we're complete n00bs at earthquake detection compared to them - but I *do* believe we're the only species fully capable of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom, which are relatively undeveloped in other animals.

Benevolence? Yeah, sure, frying the Earth to hell, murdering each other, when we can't murder humans murder animals, and act like we're better. Objective morality differs from species to species. We're morons. Case closed.

'The tendency of man's nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as all water flows downwards. Now by striking water and causing it to leap up, you may make it go over your forehead, and, by damming and leading it you may force it up a hill - but are such movements according to the nature of water? It is the force applied which causes them. When men are made to do what is not good, their nature is dealt with in this way.' (Mencius 11.2)

And also, what is "moral"? Morality differs from species to species. "Moral" things, if objective, are just structural changes in the genome for the species to survive and to balance ecological systems (like how keystone species do). Animals adequately balance ecological systems, so what they do is "moral" by *their* genome and their intuition. A superiority complex over them claiming "we're more moral" is stupid. Morality, for humans, means no murder. For animals, it means predating on this and not on that. And "righteousness" is a human concept that is built for civilization to function and for humans to override their genetic objective morality but to be considered 'good'.


2. The idea of Young Earth Creationism.
3. The idea of Old Earth Creationism,
4. The idea of creationism.
While 2-4 may not stand up to scrutiny (I know nothing about the sciences, though, so I won't say they really don't), I don't see how they're actually *harmful* in a way that calls for disappearance.

It's an idea I wish disappears.
Yeah, but it's not like you're really harmed by its existence, LOL. I know #1 does cause harm to animals, although those who believe we can treat animals in whatever way we want because of our superiority discards that which makes us superior to them in the first place, and are thus no different from animals.

5. The idea of religion and the violence caused by it.

That's just one-two hundred thousandth of it.
I hope you don't make too many enemies :P

Fix'd. But yeah :p

Actually, I meant you'll make a lot of enemies with 500k-1m ideas you want to disappear :P
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:50:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 11:39:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:37:49 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:17:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:14:26 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 10:16:45 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
What's an idea that you wish would disappear from the face of the earth? I'm not speaking about ideologies, but single ideas of smaller scale. For JMK for example, it's obviously fiscal stimulus.

For me, it's the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or the idea that language shapes how we think. My problem with it isn't as related to the validity of the hypothesis itself as it is to the amount of bickering that surrounds it. Whorf's work was widely disproved anyway - under his logic, the French treat pencils (le crayon) as boys and rulers (la regle) as girls (though, admittedly, the genders of le soleil and la lune were related to culture).

The thing is that in Hong Kong, apparently, every move to promote Putonghua (the standard version of Mandarin that serves as China's lingua franca) or to alter editorial standards so they are more in line with those of our Mainland neighbours is apparently some kind of evil communist plot to turn us all into Mongols. If you want to keep our language and culture, fine, write Cantonese slang dictionaries and don't stop speaking it. If you want to read classical poems in Cantonese to better retain the original tone patterns, fine, go ahead. If you want to keep translating Virginia as 'wai4 zan1 nei4 aa3 zau1' instead of 'fat1 gat1 nei4 aa3 zau1', fine, as long as your editor allows. Learning Putonghua and talking to Mainland tourists in it are not going to stop us from being proud Cantonese or make us submit to the CCP. The people who keep reminding us that Putonghua is a 'perverted' version of Chinese because they were heavily influenced by Mongols (and no, we didn't get retroflex consonants from the Mongols) are no better than those who accuse Southern dialects of being uncivilised.

I've a million.

1. The idea that humans are superior to non-human animals.
There is a plenty of ground for that actually. I'm not saying we're superior in all aspects - we're complete n00bs at earthquake detection compared to them - but I *do* believe we're the only species fully capable of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom, which are relatively undeveloped in other animals.

Benevolence? Yeah, sure, frying the Earth to hell, murdering each other, when we can't murder humans murder animals, and act like we're better. Objective morality differs from species to species. We're morons. Case closed.

'The tendency of man's nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as all water flows downwards. Now by striking water and causing it to leap up, you may make it go over your forehead, and, by damming and leading it you may force it up a hill - but are such movements according to the nature of water? It is the force applied which causes them. When men are made to do what is not good, their nature is dealt with in this way.' (Mencius 11.2)

Ipse dixit.
I wasn't making an argument. That was an explanation. Mencius did the explaining better than I did, so I quoted.


2. The idea of Young Earth Creationism.
3. The idea of Old Earth Creationism,
4. The idea of creationism.
While 2-4 may not stand up to scrutiny (I know nothing about the sciences, though, so I won't say they really don't), I don't see how they're actually *harmful* in a way that calls for disappearance.

It's an idea I wish disappears.
Yeah, but it's not like you're really harmed by its existence, LOL. I know #1 does cause harm to animals, although those who believe we can treat animals in whatever way we want because of our superiority discards that which makes us superior to them in the first place, and are thus no different from animals.

I extend all my arguments.
Er, I'm not sure you made really made an argument before this? You just said, 'It's an idea I wish disappears.' My opinion is that although you may not like it, it seems unnecessary for you to make it disappear since it doesn't really do any harm.

5. The idea of religion and the violence caused by it.

That's just one-two hundred thousandth of it.
I hope you don't make too many enemies :P

Fix'd. But yeah :p

Actually, I meant you'll make a lot of enemies with 500k-1m ideas you want to disappear :P

Yep.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 12:08:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 11:43:21 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:37:49 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:17:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:14:26 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 10:16:45 AM, tejretics wrote:: : : : :
I've a million.

1. The idea that humans are superior to non-human animals.
There is a plenty of ground for that actually. I'm not saying we're superior in all aspects - we're complete n00bs at earthquake detection compared to them - but I *do* believe we're the only species fully capable of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom, which are relatively undeveloped in other animals.

Benevolence? Yeah, sure, frying the Earth to hell, murdering each other, when we can't murder humans murder animals, and act like we're better. Objective morality differs from species to species. We're morons. Case closed.

'The tendency of man's nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as all water flows downwards. Now by striking water and causing it to leap up, you may make it go over your forehead, and, by damming and leading it you may force it up a hill - but are such movements according to the nature of water? It is the force applied which causes them. When men are made to do what is not good, their nature is dealt with in this way.' (Mencius 11.2)

And also, what is "moral"? Morality differs from species to species. "Moral" things, if objective, are just structural changes in the genome for the species to survive and to balance ecological systems (like how keystone species do). Animals adequately balance ecological systems, so what they do is "moral" by *their* genome and their intuition. A superiority complex over them claiming "we're more moral" is stupid. Morality, for humans, means no murder. For animals, it means predating on this and not on that. And "righteousness" is a human concept that is built for civilization to function and for humans to override their genetic objective morality but to be considered 'good'.

I wouldn't say we're superior in every arena on which humans and animals can be pitched. They have evolutionary edges over us in other matters, like earthquake detection, as well. Like I said, I don't support being cruel to animals just because of our 'superiority'. I'm a vegetarian as well, and I'm as pro-animal rights as anyone else. I also don't advocate being arrogant towards them, highlight or virtues or whatever - too many people have discarded the morality infused in our hearts in favour of the animal desires, making them no different from the animals over which they claim superiority.

Still, it is erroneous to claim that animals are our equals because they simply aren't. Filial piety, for example, is demonstrated in but a handful of animals (crows) but absent in most. However, it is found systematically in human society.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,766
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 12:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 10:17:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
This one is gonna sound weird.

I'm not sure I wpild get rid of it entirely, but something that really bothers me is when people hold firm to an ideology so as to be intellectually consistent rather than listen to their own hearts. I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that moral systems are basically just used to rationalize pre existing opinions (this doesn't mean there isn't an objective morality, just that it's much more complex than any one system can tell us...it's complicated) so holding firm to one when it contradicts your conscience is annoying.

Libertarians are the worst in this regard. I actually tend to be pretty libertarian on many things, but more out of practicality rather than ethics. Holy sht, libertarian ethics are awful and libertarians also tend to be the type on intellectuals who believe strongly in logic and thus in the infallibility of a moral system that's essentially derived of logic. In reality things are so much more complex than that, I hold contradictory opinions all the time and I think if you don't you aren't being honest with yourself. Whether our ethics and positions are objectively true on some cosmic level is irrelevant because we will never know, so just live a little and relax if your conscience and Kant don't agree.

Oooh, that's another thing I hate, the emphasis on "reason". Logic is a really awesome tool, but that's all it is. It's a tool. We don't value human life because we are rational beings, this opens up so many ethical dilemmas (like how to treat the retarded). We value human life because we *do*. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that. Ultimately it comes from the quest for meaning and understanding.

This.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 12:17:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 11:31:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 10:41:10 AM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 5/10/2015 9:02:38 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
None. Why would someone want to kill off an idea itself?
Think about it, for a second. If everyone on earth thought the same things, would not life become unbearably boring?

That wasn't my intention, LOL. I think we all have pet peeves we wish would disappear (including you).

Found the misplaced modifier. I don't want you to disappear, LOL. I meant we all wish our pet peeves disappeared.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 12:22:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 12:08:40 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:43:21 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:37:49 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:17:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/10/2015 11:14:26 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/10/2015 10:16:45 AM, tejretics wrote:: : : : :
I've a million.

1. The idea that humans are superior to non-human animals.
There is a plenty of ground for that actually. I'm not saying we're superior in all aspects - we're complete n00bs at earthquake detection compared to them - but I *do* believe we're the only species fully capable of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom, which are relatively undeveloped in other animals.

Benevolence? Yeah, sure, frying the Earth to hell, murdering each other, when we can't murder humans murder animals, and act like we're better. Objective morality differs from species to species. We're morons. Case closed.

'The tendency of man's nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as all water flows downwards. Now by striking water and causing it to leap up, you may make it go over your forehead, and, by damming and leading it you may force it up a hill - but are such movements according to the nature of water? It is the force applied which causes them. When men are made to do what is not good, their nature is dealt with in this way.' (Mencius 11.2)

And also, what is "moral"? Morality differs from species to species. "Moral" things, if objective, are just structural changes in the genome for the species to survive and to balance ecological systems (like how keystone species do). Animals adequately balance ecological systems, so what they do is "moral" by *their* genome and their intuition. A superiority complex over them claiming "we're more moral" is stupid. Morality, for humans, means no murder. For animals, it means predating on this and not on that. And "righteousness" is a human concept that is built for civilization to function and for humans to override their genetic objective morality but to be considered 'good'.

I wouldn't say we're superior in every arena on which humans and animals can be pitched. They have evolutionary edges over us in other matters, like earthquake detection, as well. Like I said, I don't support being cruel to animals just because of our 'superiority'. I'm a vegetarian as well, and I'm as pro-animal rights as anyone else. I also don't advocate being arrogant towards them, highlight or virtues or whatever - too many people have discarded the morality infused in our hearts in favour of the animal desires, making them no different from the animals over which they claim superiority.

Still, it is erroneous to claim that animals are our equals because they simply aren't. Filial piety, for example, is demonstrated in but a handful of animals (crows) but absent in most. However, it is found systematically in human society.

Once more, you're ascribing human standards of morality to animals.

P1: If a species fulfil the species' keystone requirements (i.e. their genetic, objective moral "values"), then the species is moral.
P2: Most (actually all) species fulfil *their* keystone requirements except humans.
C: All species *except* humans are moral.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 12:30:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The opposite of what Thett said. I think there is more of a problem with inconsistencies in this world than consistencies. Here are a few examples.

1. People Complaining that we are overtaxed while also demanding more hand outs for the poor or the troops.

2. The people who demand that the police keep America's social problems hidden from us (they'll call the cops on loiterers people peeing on the side walk etc.), while also getting upset about supposed police brutality, when the fact is the job is dirty.

3. Whigggers who claim to like black people, but actually spend their whole lives satirizing the worst black stereotypes.