Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:52 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:48 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:21 pm
That's because I have no, "politics." I am totally a-political and every social/political ideology is wrong.

You are delusional.

Well of course.

Last edited by RCSaunders on Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

I started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality. As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, or reddit, or instagram - all places you can post your stupid shit without running, what might be a useful forum - into the ground. You do realise this forum is a ghost town because every argument is dragged down to your level, right?

Moving away from the expressed needs to falsify what you say or imply, and from the expressed needs to falsify things that you did not say or imply …

VT participates because she needs to.

Moving on to principle, everything done or said is caused by need, not by choice. Choice is an effect that may be caused by need (out of confusion over an unclear need), just as doing and saying are effects of need.

Need is the cause of all doing and saying and choosing, but need does not explain or justify doing and saying. Ethics and the lack of ethics is the justification for need. Ethics is the guide for expressing need, and sometimes ethics causes need to not murder, or murder. Folks are complex, as is the cause of some specific needs.

Murder is a doing. Murder is an effect of need. Not murdering is also an effect of need, however ethics rather than need is the justification for not murdering, and for murder.

Conclusion: To know thyself, discover the cause of thine needs and their justifications, and needs will naturally change.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pm I started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality.

To be executed is the ultimate wrong action by society, via an individual person, that can be done against a person. People are not punished by doing them right, but by doing them wrong. Deterrence is the threat of suffering wrongness as a consequence of one's actions.

For example, if one now offends a school board member in a public forum in Loudoun County, Virginia, USA, under the Biden administration one is now subject to illegal investigations by the FederalBI and other federal agencies, via being identitified (identitied) as a terrorist.

Thus one can be illegally deterred by a society's illegal (wrong) actions, because only the brave hero falling on a grenade will dare to insult a school board member at the cost of having one's life eviscerated, and not getting the results that will benefit one's child, which is the purpose of speaking up in the first place.

To be executed by society is the consequence of an individual, in the identity of a role, doing the ultimate wrong against a person.

Do the ethics of society make the executioner blameless for his brutality (pitiless or not) as an individual for committing the ultimate wrong?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pmI started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality. As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, or reddit, or instagram - all places you can post your stupid shit without running, what might be a useful forum - into the ground. You do realise this forum is a ghost town because every argument is dragged down to your level, right?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:20 pmVT participates because she needs to.

Thanks for re-animating that corpse, but VT was being deliberately vexatious to squash discussion of a subject on which she has strong preconceived opinions. I'm quite happy to entertain a counter argument, but this wasn't that. She accused me of only being upset about Sabina Nessa's murder because I fancy her. Then posted a picture of down syndrome woman, and demanded I be equally upset. This is a philosophy forum, and the purpose is to discuss ideas and issues - and whether or not you agree, you should be able to constructively further the debate. Not just derail what you don't wish to hear.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:21 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pmI started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality. As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, or reddit, or instagram - all places you can post your stupid shit without running, what might be a useful forum - into the ground. You do realise this forum is a ghost town because every argument is dragged down to your level, right?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:20 pmVT participates because she needs to.

Thanks for re-animating that corpse, but VT was being deliberately vexatious to squash discussion of a subject on which she has strong preconceived opinions. I'm quite happy to entertain a counter argument, but this wasn't that. She accused me of only being upset about Sabina Nessa's murder because I fancy her. Then posted a picture of down syndrome woman, and demanded I be equally upset. This is a philosophy forum, and the purpose is to discuss ideas and issues - and whether or not you agree, you should be able to constructively further the debate. Not just derail what you don't wish to hear.

“Only,” is a big word, isn't it. (hee haw!)

However, that sentence can also be taken as an impersonal statement of principle when you elevate the “I” in your protected identity to that of not this body exclusively to assume with the gift of human imagination and intelligence the conscience of humanity. As such an identity, “only” is a word to define your assumed limits, and the limitations of humanity, in an aggressive way as a challenge, to see how you cope with unfair challenges. You may or may not have the need to correct that definition of you as the conscience of humanity, depending on your proclivities and all things considered, all things including your individual perspective and world view.

However, you may well be one of those knowing folks who knows that folks with Downs, more often than not, are the sweetest people on earth and not at all ignorant of the attitudes held towards them, and as such a person you would understand the nature of those who are ignorant of your knowing that sweetness and innocence to be mourned.

It can also be taken as an opportunity to philosophize.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:21 pm
Thanks for re-animating that corpse ...

I was a kinda hopin' you'd be one of those moving towards the other principles I dangled, rather than the personal, but I'm a knowin' there's still gold in them thar hills.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:46 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:21 pm
Thanks for re-animating that corpse ...

I was a kinda hopin' you'd be one of those moving towards the other principles I dangled, rather than the personal, but I'm a knowin' there's still gold in them thar hills.

When you write something I can understand I'll reply to it. It's like you are that post modernism jargon generator.

"However, that sentence can also be taken as an impersonal statement of principle when you elevate the “I” in your protected identity to that of not this body exclusively to assume with the gift of human imagination and intelligence the conscience of humanity."

Yes or No. [delete as politically correct]

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:21 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:20 pmYou admitted that you weren't as 'moved' by the other woman. The only difference between the two is their physical appearance. Same crime.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:32 pmI started this thread to discuss the ethics of the death penalty, and more specifically, my idea that human rights can be forfeited by crimes of pitiless brutality. As usual, you have failed to even try to address the subject of the thread, and so I just want to ask - why are you here? Have you not heard of twitter, or reddit, or instagram - all places you can post your stupid shit without running, what might be a useful forum - into the ground. You do realise this forum is a ghost town because every argument is dragged down to your level, right?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:20 pmVT participates because she needs to.

Thanks for re-animating that corpse, but VT was being deliberately vexatious to squash discussion of a subject on which she has strong preconceived opinions. I'm quite happy to entertain a counter argument, but this wasn't that. She accused me of only being upset about Sabina Nessa's murder because I fancy her. Then posted a picture of down syndrome woman, and demanded I be equally upset. This is a philosophy forum, and the purpose is to discuss ideas and issues - and whether or not you agree, you should be able to constructively further the debate. Not just derail what you don't wish to hear.

I didn't 'demand' anything--I simply asked and you answered honestly, which was quite surprising actually. Perhaps you need to be as honest with yourself...

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:06 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:46 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 2:21 pm
Thanks for re-animating that corpse ...

I was a kinda hopin' you'd be one of those moving towards the other principles I dangled, rather than the personal, but I'm a knowin' there's still gold in them thar hills.

When you write something I can understand I'll reply to it. It's like you are that post modernism jargon generator.

"However, that sentence can also be taken as an impersonal statement of principle when you elevate the “I” in your protected identity to that of not this body exclusively to assume with the gift of human imagination and intelligence the conscience of humanity."

Yes or No. [delete as politically correct]

What I wrote makes perfect sense. You should read more to broaden your scope of comprehension. For some folks a lack of understanding is a spur to understand, rather than an excuse to defend one's ignorance.

In terms that you might understand, it says to get your head out of your ass because understanding is not about any insult to your identity, but rather it's about using intelligence to detect principles that apply to the human condition in most if not all situations, if possible.

"Yes or No. [delete as politically correct]"
I don't understand what you mean by this.

It's looking more like those other principles dangled will die on the vine for lack of tender loving attention.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:06 pm
When you write something I can understand I'll reply to it. It's like you are that post modernism jargon generator.

Wiki says about post-modernism:

“It questions or criticizes viewpoints associated with Enlightenment rationality dating back to the 17th century, and is characterized by irony, eclecticism, and its rejection of the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization. Postmodernism is associated with relativism and a focus on ideology in the maintenance of economic and political power.”

This does not apply at all to what I write. The US Constitution, which I advocate, is a product of The Age of Enlightenment. Also, I do not advocate relativism.

I think this is rather apparent in what I write, and in fact it's Leftists (which I'm not) who are relativists, and btw, motivated by the failed ideology of Marxism.

Either Wiki is wrong about post-modernism, or you are.

Perhaps it's just a phrase you heard and don't really understand, much as you don't understand what I write. There are also many texts on various topics, including philosophy, that you may wish to avoid, as they can also be densely worded and difficult to understand.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:56 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:06 pm
When you write something I can understand I'll reply to it. It's like you are that post modernism jargon generator.

Wiki says about post-modernism:

“It questions or criticizes viewpoints associated with Enlightenment rationality dating back to the 17th century, and is characterized by irony, eclecticism, and its rejection of the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization. Postmodernism is associated with relativism and a focus on ideology in the maintenance of economic and political power.”

This does not apply at all to what I write. The US Constitution, which I advocate, is a product of The Age of Enlightenment. Also, I do not advocate relativism.

I think this is rather apparent in what I write, and in fact it's Leftists (which I'm not) who are relativists, and btw, motivated by the failed ideology of Marxism.

Either Wiki is wrong about post-modernism, or you are.

Perhaps it's just a phrase you heard and don't really understand, much as you don't understand what I write. There are also many texts on various topics, including philosophy, that you may wish to avoid, as they can also be densely worded and difficult to understand.

I'm 'leIft' and I'm certainly not a relativist. I detest PC and relativism, which tend to go hand in hand. Would you like me to refer to you as 'nazi', since nazism is right wing, therefore all 'conservatives' must be nazis?

Plenty of folks say that conservatives are nazis.
Like or dislike may affect attention upon the saying, but not the saying itself, unless the sayer says in the situation which might cause any saying about anything to be difficult for awhile.

*

Are you a post-modernist?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:43 pm
Are you a post-modernist?

Seriously? What do you think? I go with logic and reason, which is why I've always voted 'left' because it makes more logical sense and this has been highlighted with recent events and the fact that when the stakes are down it's 'left wing' policies that are the ones that work.
Other than that I don't label myself or lock myself into a particular political persuasion.

Who knows. I've just been called one based on some mysterious criteria.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:06 pm
When you write something I can understand I'll reply to it. It's like you are that post modernism jargon generator.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:56 pmWiki says about post-modernism:

“It questions or criticizes viewpoints associated with Enlightenment rationality dating back to the 17th century, and is characterized by irony, eclecticism, and its rejection of the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization. Postmodernism is associated with relativism and a focus on ideology in the maintenance of economic and political power.”

This does not apply at all to what I write. The US Constitution, which I advocate, is a product of The Age of Enlightenment. Also, I do not advocate relativism.

I think this is rather apparent in what I write, and in fact it's Leftists (which I'm not) who are relativists, and btw, motivated by the failed ideology of Marxism.

Either Wiki is wrong about post-modernism, or you are.

Perhaps it's just a phrase you heard and don't really understand, much as you don't understand what I write. There are also many texts on various topics, including philosophy, that you may wish to avoid, as they can also be densely worded and difficult to understand.

I may be wrong about you Walker - I'm quite happy to admit that; but you could write more clearly - as you have done here. You surely must admit that was a horribly tortured sentence - one could easily, if mistakenly - attribute to post modern, politically correct neo marxism. For me, philosophy is not about obscurantist jargon, but about saying complicated things simply. That's the real skill a philosopher should seek to develop. IMO. Post modernism is the exact opposite - they seek to say simple things in complicated ways, because when you say it simply, it's obviously tosh! Anyhow, I'm sorry if you're offended and/or that I offended you, but please spare me the linguistic gymnastics.