DC Sniper put to death

[Lucy]

I don't like him much, and I'm not a communist...

 

[Ghostrider]

This is a "My dad can beat up your dad". Betcha don't even have anything CLOSE!

My dad doesn't have to beat your dad up, because my dad can pay me to burn your dad's workplace to the ground and shoot up your home.:lol:

 

[eveningsky339]

That is like saying there is only one universally correct way to eat a banana. It isn't true, even if you consider Kants universal imperfect objective, there is still a lot of room for negotiations.

I consider moral relativism to be flawed, but I must say I have a few beefs with moral objectivism as well.

There is more to life than right and wrong; objectivism leaves no place for "correct" and "incorrect". If someone eats a banana backwards, I'm not going to say that he's wrong, but the way he is eating the banana is incorrect.

Another example along these lines is food preferences-- if I walk into a room and say that the best food in the world is mashed potatoes, it's true... for me. Others in the room may agree, some may only find mashed potatoes tolerable, and others won't like them at all.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, how I understand objectivism: You can be anything you want to be, morals are your own matter and if you are a really perceptive reasonable being, you will come to the same morals as all others. Rational acting is ideal.

That is, in my view and excuse my French, the most idiotic way of thinking possible. It takes a lifetime to understand the world around you and many people die without any enlightenment about their reality.

You will need to select some assumptions about what is good and what is bad, since you can't wait forever until you have found a rational reasonable conclusion. Also, a rational solution for the short term, is not always a rational solution for the long term. It would be VERY rational for a company to abuse their workers to the fullest for a short time, the bad effects will come on the long run,when you loose workers and experience.

 

[Lucy]

Another example along these lines is food preferences-- if I walk into a room and say that the best food in the world is mashed potatoes, it's true... for me. Others in the room may agree, some may only find mashed potatoes tolerable, and others won't like them at all.

I hate mashed potatoes. Makes me sick.

 

[Urwumpe]

I hate mashed potatoes. Makes me sick.

You infidel!!! Do you want to say that you despite our appreciated idol of the church of the "Fix&Fertig"* ??!!!!


*That is a local aspect of Wolfsburg, "Fix&Fertig" is the name of mashed potatoes on a Volkswagen canteen bill - relates to typical instant mashed potatoes.

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

Ugh, I won't go into Rand's political philosophy (which is flawed)

No, it's not.

because that will turn into a diatribe against libertarianism (which too is flawed).

No, it's not.

Rand's arguement that the law of identity implies determinism

She never made any such argument.

Also, Rand's view that morality is guided by self-interest

That was not her position.

Then there is this, which you ought to read:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_4.pdf

Read it before. Its errors are myriad.

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

Garçon!

Pierre Garçon almost cost the Colts the game last night with his rock-hard hands...

 

[Hielor]

So, apparently this objectivism thing's primary argument is to stick its fingers in its ears and say "I'm right and you're wrong, na na na."

What an excellently valid argument.

 

[eveningsky339]

So, apparently this objectivism thing's primary argument is to stick its fingers in its ears and say "I'm right and you're wrong, na na na."

What an excellently valid argument.

Essentially. It's nothing more than a cop-out-- "Your argument is invalid because you are objectively wrong."

 

[BHawthorne]

No, it's not.


No, it's not.


She never made any such argument.


That was not her position.


Read it before. Its errors are myriad.

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------



Pierre Garçon almost cost the Colts the game last night with his rock-hard hands...

Here is a prime example of what I mean by stating personal opinion as fact...

 

[Tex]

One would think this thread has lived it's life and has died in peace.

 

[Linguofreak]

That is a commonly-held belief here in the USA, including many in my family with whom I've had debates. Here's the thing that makes no sense to me: if a person really believes 1) the criminal must "repent" before he dies otherwise he will be tortured by God for all eternity, and 2) if he does "repent" before he dies, then he will be safe and blissful for all eternity, then killing the criminal and cutting his life short is the cruelest thing you could ever possibly do to him. After all, the criminal is more likely to "repent" if you give him 40 years instead of just a few years. So I don't see how people who believe in eternal damnation can reconcile wanting to send a criminal to his "eternal torment" rather than giving him every single possible second to "repent". And before anyone says, "Well, they deserved it!", what possible crime could warrant even one hour of torture, let alone an eternity?

The theory, at least, is that repentance is more likely if the criminal is faced with an imminent death associated with his crime than with a death 40 years away associated with old age.

That said, there is quite a bit of debate on the subject even among Christians. And I sometimes do wonder if it might be better to have a consistently enforced life-in-prison sentence for murder than our current system where people sometimes get the death penalty and sometimes don't, and the appeals process drags out the process of deciding whether they get the death penalty for decades.

 

[Lucy]

One would think this thread has lived it's life and has died in peace.

Here, here.

 

[Hielor]

The theory, at least, is that repentance is more likely if the criminal is faced with an imminent death associated with his crime than with a death 40 years away associated with old age.

This is really just like a confession given under duress...

 

[Linguofreak]

This is really just like a confession given under duress...

No it's not. Repentance is ones internal attitude to ones past wrong actions and to God, who witnessed those actions and knows more about them than the one who committed them. Confession is an external statement about whether one did or did not undertake a given action, given to human beings who may or may not have witnessed it.

The innocent do not need to confess, but can. (In other words, there is such thing as a false confession extracted under duress).

The innocent neither need to, nor can, repent. (Those who have done something wrong can feel either feel sorry for it, or not. Those who have done nothing wrong cannot feel sorry for having done something wrong. I suppose they might be brainwashed into *thinking* they've done something wrong, but in that case God would still know they were innocent).