₦airaland Forum

Mr anony: I just wanted to hear what you thought of the post and the ideas therein. I don't want to give you a soundbite. Do you think that post accurately describes how morality is objective? If yes cool. If no, why don't you think so?

Obviously no, as she's evil simply because she offends someone's values.

Deep Sight: Your issues on consciousness will be better addressed on that thread. I am writing an epistle for it, and it would not be efficient to repeat myself.

But just as a little teaser, do your body parts form voltron or do they work for voltron?

Form

Deep Sight: O dear, o dear. I am really surprised that you fellows do not see the dilemma of someone who says that only physical nature exists and yet seeks to locate his morality on something else?

I don't think you understand their position, even if you're more familiar with it than me. Can't quote on device, but you mention natural up there, and I would have thought that's more or else all there's to it. With a focus on this; the abstract is useless without the physical, simple. All of nature builds on the physical, even consciousness. (I, personally, believe there is a way to turn potential, which is abstract, to physical real in a sense. But that's another story, and doesn't really affect much here anyhow.)

How exactly does consciousness work? Remains to be seen. Physical components working together? Undeniable. Physical components with the ability to abstract, or compute. All natural, or would an ai qualify as supernatural?


The animals you speak of doing natural things which are questionable by human moral standards, do they not possess emotions? They may lack the ability to reason and thus operate (more or else) on instinct, but many undeniably have emotions.

Now, if materialists were to use said animals as an excuse to kill wantonly, have they not already accepted that emotions, instinct, etc, exist? This is what drives these beings, no? They feel something, then act on it. Just like us, except with much worse reasoning skills. So feelings, emotions, etc, their nature may be debatable, but they are indeed natural and ubiquitous. They are also dependent on the physical

Materialist simply has to point out that aided by his superior ability to reason, naturally attained, achieving his goals need not involve eating fellow human beings. In fact, that would be disadvantageous in most situations. Nature might have fumbled on with such practices through time, but nature lacks the ability to reason, yes? And again, his goals may be to save as many humans as he can manage, or to treasure all life, etc. Goals need not make any sort of rational sense, they're ultimately built around emotional rewards, clearly not rational.

Deep Sight: Don't make me laugh, lol, none of you have shown a single thing whatsoever on this thread.

We have.

Deep Sight: If physical nature is all that exists, it must perforce be the reference point for morality, simple. How anyone can ask for an explanation of that, just beats me.

It is, but indirectly. Your consciousness for the most part depends on your brain, a physical component. No brains, no morals.

Deep Sight: It is like agreeing that every cake in the world is made of flour and yet insisting that you have a cake that's made of something else.

It is also agreeing that everyone will perceive the cake differently. Some would be thinking of so and so while eating it, some will love it, others hate it, etc. But all cakes are made of flower. All natural.

Deep Sight: Thus, saying that everything that exists is physical nature, but then saying that you have something that is NOT physical nature!

How is this a logical fallacy, as thehomer lazily claims? Res ipsa loquitor! The thing speaks for itself!

I doubt that's what they're saying.

Deep Sight: That is the meaning of strict materialism. That everything is physical matter, and we and all living things are, and derive from the interplay of physical matter alone. In the first place one wonders why things that derive from mindless interactions of matter need to have any moral compunctions at all. In the second, and more relevant case, one wonders why the strict materialist would then seek to dissociate himself from the territorial and predatory inter working evident in ALL of nature?

1. Because mindless interactions can eventually become complex enough to attain (our sort of) consciousness. Making better and better computations

2. Consciousness, again.

Deep Sight: In other words, he is trying to stand aside from and dissociate himself from something that he says is the only thing that exists and is ALL that exists!

Beat that man!

Its an absurd, absurd absurd stance.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that there is NOBODY on this planet that lives his life with this stance in mind. Nobody whatsoever. There are only baby atheists with poorly thought out views who claim that they are strict materialists. No human being can actually be one - for that would entail denying his very thoughts, which are not physical things. His very emotions, which are not physical things. His very ideas and conceptions, which are not physical things. His imaginations and fantasies, which aren't physical things.

I doubt their stance is this simplistic. One could say only an armchair philosopher could assume that that is they're claim, but that's contingent on various factors

Deep Sight: ^^^ I assume that's you, Wiegraf.

One line suffices to render all you wrote to the trash can: if there are no objective morals, everyone is free to do as he pleases and no one else can label any other person's acts immoral as its all subjective as you say. End of.

In short: to thy tents o Israel.

Please, do try to murder someone in broad daylight, and we'll see if no one can label the act immoral

Goot, goot. I now see the extent of your folly issues. You're mixing up a few things

Deep Sight: A strict materialist would hold that nothing exists but matter - physical things - and that we are the product of the mindless interactions of such matter. Such a worldview would would subscribe to the ToE as the basis for our existence, and thus regard man as nothing but an animal - only a more intelligent one. Within this worldview it is difficult to see why it should be wrong for men TO DO AS ANIMALS DO, but merely do the same things with smarter methods.

Note how again this says nothing of what they value. Zilch. Any moral code would be dependent on that, yes?

I can only surmise your issue is; determinism.


Even in a deterministic universe, morals are still tied to values. I probably would qualify as one of these 'strict materialists', and going by my value system most of the examples given here for morally reprehensible acts are indeed morally bad by my standards. I can also give reasons why (and have done so).

Now, do I blame anyone for their actions? Ultimately, no. But it would be right for one to persecute such acts when done by us humans because we are sapient. We can reason, think, etc. These properties, which to the best of our knowledge only we possess, changes the entire situation with regards to us vs non-sentient life and morality.

For instance, if I were to punish a dog as an example to other dogs, I very likely would be wasting my time (regardless of what uyi says). It can be done, but clearly animals act more on instinct. Not so with sentient life, they can easily discern that should they act x they would get so and so punishment. In other words, it would be useful to persecute or declare actions as morally bad as it would prevent situations less than ideal from occurring and encourage 'good' acts. It establishes a useful reward system.

ds: If anyone then says that the smartest method for staying alive would be to have collective codes, that is fine: but it should be recognized that that is a system for self-protection, and nothing more. It does not then render any proscribed acts intrinsically evil: this is the key distinction you fail to make.

And which system makes acts intrinsically evil, objectively, across the board?

You have failed to acknowledge is there's no such thing as objective morals, inherently good actions, etc. It's all subjective. Only constant is there would be good and bad. What is good or bad is completely subjective.

ds: There is a difference between law and morals. This is a huge subject all by itself within the subject of Jurisprudence as taught in Law. It is a distinction that I see many within this thread, notably Plaetton, have failed to absorb. Legality is not morality and vice versa, although of course there are converging areas. It may be illegal to park your car in a certain space, but not necessarily immoral. Likewise it may be immoral to be unfaithful within marriage but not necessarily illegal. Some things that are illegal are criminal and others are not. There are civil wrongs called torts, which may arise from negligence and may not necessarily be immoral. These are the distinctions.

I did go out of my way to mention necessary evils do not translate to morally good, yes?

ds: Now, within the philosophy of law, there are wrongs that are called mala in se (which means an intrinsically evil or wicked deed) and mala prohibita (which means a deed that is not intrinsically evil or wicked, but is illegal by the prohibition of the law.

Now what you guys are doing amounts to a failure to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita. By your position, there would be no such thing as mala in se until and unless it is so declared by law - which is mala prohibita.

As such, you should ask yourself whether such a thing as mala in se exists at all. Whether such a thing existed in antiquity. Or whether such a thing only began to exist when societies made formal declarations in that regard. That is the key question.

No such thing as objectively good.

Even life, it's of value to one because it feels good to be alive. Should I disagree with that sentiment, feel terribly $hitty alive, then I'll view death as a good thing, justifiably, and add it to my list of values.

See muslims blowing themselves up for example (and many probably weren't too unhappy with life, they simply valued their 'next life' over this one, thereby making death good)

ds: It is altogether illogical for the strict materialist to regard man as a smarter animal only, and complain when smarter animals do what animals do in nature, but only does it more smartly.

This is the centre of the matter.

False. See above again. Your value system determines your morality.

fellis: Those are the insults, big mouth and coward.




Hey now, no need to get emotional and start throwing unnecessary insults, you can make your point civilly.



bla bla bla, these things are not mandated by Islam so they should not be blamed on Islam, you hear?

They are not? Is your testimony equal to a muslim males in court or not?

wazobia_for_u: Is this a zimbabwe or Indonesia song? At the end you said nothing

Correction, I nearly said nothing, thanks to the silly bans/censorship

wazobia_for_u: Islam see women as fragile or flexible that have to be pamper and treat with care that is why some Muslim don't allow their wife to work or do heavy job but this is not a must for all Muslims, allowing women to drive a car is not a form of bad treatment, my sister love to drive and her husband never allowed her and they are good Christians, does that mean she is in cage?

Can you mention two or three countries that their country rules forbid women from driving, I have been fortunate to be in some Muslim dominated countries and women drives.

Concerning cloths, almost all women body is regard as unclothedness because almost all part of their body seduce men, be sincere with yourself if you see the laps of a guy and a girl what come to your mind? For me I feel seduced seeing fresh and clean nails only and that is one of my priority choosing lady.

Its not compulsory for all Muslim women to wear what you are saying but is compulsory for them to dress decent just like the way Bible portray Mary the mother of Jesus.

Christians should not be having problem with the dressing of so. Muslim ladies when they cover their body, if you call Mary the mother of Jesus, the cherish,adorable,icon,mentor and the best among women but you don't see anything good in people that dress like her.

Maybe you should check the way some catholic dress.

Che, islam. Make criticism, albeit facetious, hide it, then leave jokes like this post untouched and push this thread to the front page?

You bring this thread out to the open, why? I suppose you're now going to ban this account/extend the other ban and censor my post again as well? If you aren't willing to listen to other opinions, wtf do you advertise your threads? Just so you could tell us 'what is' while we meekly bleat along? Do we look like deluded sheeple?

So again, this pure dross. Unadulterated drivel. The dizzying height of folly. Oh yes, why?

You think you have the right to 'allow' or deny them basic freedoms simply because in your warped, silly mind they're 'fragile or flexible that have to be pamper and treat with care'? Really? Says who?

This sounds like an opinion to me, one that reeks of a flavor of bigotry, and you don't deny people basic rights (especially rights which you yourself full enjoy) because of opinions. If you insist on doing so (and you do whenever given the chance) then I have to ask, wth do you, or even your tyrant overlord allah, think you are?

So, this OPINION has now led you to justify MANDATING other adults indulge you. This is particularly foolish. Dress, walk, speak, make friends only we approve of. You even go as far reducing the value of their testimonies in court; 1 man's testimony is equal to that of 2 women. Etc etc. You sure you don't tell them how to give birth as well? What about menstruate? Perhaps even how to breathe?

It sounds to me you think women are frivolous and foolish, so much so they really don't know what's best for themselves. It's condescending, sexist nonsense that assumes males inherently have rights over females. It assumes that by default males are superior to females.


Now, if a woman well exposed and aware of her rights chooses to remain sheeple and subscribe to your philosophy, good for her. That's her prerogative, I fully support her right to do so. For any other case, these mandates are astronomically far from acceptable, they're in other galaxies. To compound on this, consider islamic countries/societies, consider their stance on apostacy, then do the math. If a woman in one of these societies simply changes her mind about this nonsense....

Unless you don't mean the english definition of the word 'mistreat', the above very clearly is mistreatment. It's daylight robbery.

Noctis: Played both. Dragon's dogma was average, world map too small, enemies too repetitive and combat not that fun. Dark souls is awesome, but I got stuck at the ornstein and smough fight and I'm deeply ashamed of myself. If you want a good jrpg try ni no kuni, it has stellar reviews. I'm downloading it right now.

Well, wasn't actually expecting a response, believe it or not. Your complaints for dragon's dogma are my complaints for dark souls. Note, I've gone virtually nowhere with either. But I was finally getting into Dragon's Dogma (still under 10 hrs in though, I think), then.....nepa. And both these games don't allow multi-saves.

I'll be giving Dark Souls another spin though I don't get why the plaudits. Every gaddem thing in the damned game, every, single, gaddemned thing in it, and they literally are damned as far as that universe is concerned, wants to very much kill you, so very much so. Every single atom in their virtual bodies(?) wants you very dead. There's absolutely no joy anywhere. And it's not necessarily difficult imo, but it's repetitive. To achieve a few things, you're going to have to die a few times, no problems there. The problem, for me, is you have to kill another 10 fodder, over and over and over again, till you get a handle on the main task (usually a boss or mini-boss)....phew... I may not have that much free time anymore, especially as there's no pay off, plot or otherwise, from beating the boss


It's entirely possible I'd be willing to do some rather shameful things to get my hands on the bolded. Downloading is, sadly, probably not an option for me. I see a 9ja online store with 'resonance of fate', I hope to at least get that

Any Dark Souls or Dragon's Dogma players? Better yet, any jrpg players? I could use some jrpg, one that isn't FF

JeSoul: The spambot got you W. I've untagged the thread.

Ty! It seems to like me a lot.


Here's the story link, for better formatting (I'll fix this later)
http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm

ALSO, THE UNIVERSAL AC TYPES LIKE BUZUGEE.

intro
Isaac Asimov was the most prolific science fiction
author of all time. In fifty years he averaged a new
magazine article, short story, or book every two
weeks, and most of that on a manual typewriter.
Asimov thought that The Last Question, first
copyrighted in 1956, was his best short story ever.
Even if you do not have the background in science to
be familiar with all of the concepts presented here,
the ending packs more impact than any other book
that I've ever read. Don't read the end of the story first!


intro by the man himself
This is by far my favorite story of all those I have
written.
After all, I undertook to tell several trillion years
of human history in the space of a short story and I
leave it to you as to how well I succeeded. I also
undertook another task, but I won't tell you what
that was lest l spoil the story for you.
It is a curious fact that innumerable readers
have asked me if I wrote this story. They seem
never to remember the title of the story or (for
sure) the author, except for the vague thought it
might be me. But, of course, they never forget the
story itself especially the ending. The idea seems
to drown out everything -- and I'm satisfied that it
should.

For anyone else interested

Download this
www.thepiratebay.se/torrent/7387367/Download_Accelerator_Plus_(DAP)_10.0.3.3___crack

Install, follow instructions to crack in text file or the comments of the link. Restart browser (works best with ie for me). From now on anything you watch a video there's a download link button above, use it to store the video on hdd. Rather fast, depending on the site..

Or just use torrents... I think mkvs are small, dunno its been a while

Who dare ban me!!!
Answer me!!!
Will it unglue?!
It was the links, wasn't it?!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munto
Excellent action scenes, a lot of them too. Not the first version, the second one.. Not so special story for me here as well

The second season of full metal panic (the proper 2nd season, there's an in between season, a full one, but it's just slice of life, gags, etc, so I suppose technically I mean the 3rd series) is really good all round, some beautiful mecha scenes...

@ves,
This isn't everything I've seen, but a lot of my favs are there, and ranked. And not too many never ending shonen around anyways

http://myanimelist.net/animelist/whatanimu

Kishi does make his stuff up whimsically, I'll give him credit for tobi though (not sure why I like him). I gave up on d kubo a loooooonnnnnggggg time ago. I wouldn't want to follow the man's thoughts, if you can call them that. Oda is not so special but still boss, just know you'll finish one piece with your grand kids, maybe..