|
|
Post by daverichards on Jun 17, 2008 20:14:49 GMT
nah today it was the Blue Le coq sportive away shirt
|
|
|
|
Post by Scanner on Jun 17, 2008 20:18:56 GMT
Sssshhh, there watching you!  |
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jun 17, 2008 22:28:37 GMT
I couldn't give a fuck about carbon footprints though. Don't like the sound of helicopters flying over London though, it's pushing the boundaries a bit, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jun 17, 2008 22:55:44 GMT
at the end of the day 2.5 million lives lost is a shame, but in 10 years time what difference will it make? just because these deaths happen during our lifetime doesnt make them anymore important than the deaths at any other time, im sure you dont see the pillaging of the romans 2000 years ago as anywhere near as much of an issue, or even the deaths of people in WWI and WWII. It's why I don't see the big issue with these things, whether it takes 1 day, 1 year or 100 years, eventually it loses its significance and is replaced by the current issues. Believing anything else is just delusional. what ?  You'd probably have a dfferent view if this was your son, this is happening in our names and NOW, not 2000 fucking years ago, if it was your son, would you be saying "ah never mind, in 10 years I'll have forgotton about all this" ?. People need to put themselves into the shoes of the people on the end of the bombs, they're humans just like you and me, the have families that they love and lifes to live, they are people as well, just because they live over water from here doesn't make them any less human. abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4775808Where did I say it makes them any less human? All I said is in the bigger picture, its significance is very little. If I was in that situation, yes I would be upset - it's understandable. However, how arrogant would it be to say that these losses are more important, and greater than any other losses suffered by other people? You have done that and fallen right into the intellectual trap set there, you said what happened 2000 years ago isn't worth caring about. Well, what makes this any different to the fact it has happened in your lifetime and that didn't happen in your life time. For you to say this is more important is to say that we are somehow more important than those before us, so what makes these people before us any less human? As harsh a reality as it is, a human life means very little, in all honesty, unless theres actually a god a human life is worth no more than the life of a cow - yet I bet you don't have any qualms with the deaths of cows and various other animals. I see this kind of loss of life, especially in the circumstances pertaining as yes avoidable and a tragic shame; BUT it has no more significance than the deaths of any others at any other time in history or the future. Many years ago there was the death of the vietnamese because napalm and the americans then, hell back during the days of forging our Empire we were causing mass murder - and off the back of all that death and fighting the age we live in was forged. Your emotions are understably contorted by this serpico, but nothing makes the fact that you are alive now and witnessing this now any more important or less important than the killings of yesteryear. |
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jun 17, 2008 23:05:13 GMT
what ? You'd probably have a dfferent view if this was your son, this is happening in our names and NOW, not 2000 fucking years ago, if it was your son, would you be saying "ah never mind, in 10 years I'll have forgotton about all this" ?. People need to put themselves into the shoes of the people on the end of the bombs, they're humans just like you and me, the have families that they love and lifes to live, they are people as well, just because they live over water from here doesn't make them any less human. abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4775808Where did I say it makes them any less human? All I said is in the bigger picture, its significance is very little. If I was in that situation, yes I would be upset - it's understandable. However, how arrogant would it be to say that these losses are more important, and greater than any other losses suffered by other people? You have done that and fallen right into the intellectual trap set there, you said what happened 2000 years ago isn't worth caring about. Well, what makes this any different to the fact it has happened in your lifetime and that didn't happen in your life time. For you to say this is more important is to say that we are somehow more important than those before us, so what makes these people before us any less human? As harsh a reality as it is, a human life means very little, in all honesty, unless theres actually a god a human life is worth no more than the life of a cow - yet I bet you don't have any qualms with the deaths of cows and various other animals. I see this kind of loss of life, especially in the circumstances pertaining as yes avoidable and a tragic shame; BUT it has no more significance than the deaths of any others at any other time in history or the future. Many years ago there was the death of the vietnamese because napalm and the americans then, hell back during the days of forging our Empire we were causing mass murder - and off the back of all that death and fighting the age we live in was forged. Your emotions are understably contorted by this serpico, but nothing makes the fact that you are alive now and witnessing this now any more important or less important than the killings of yesteryear. I just don't get the point you're making ? i don't think i ever claimed the deaths of Iraqi's today are any worse than atrocities in the past, what would be the point in me talking about something that happened thousands of years ago ? that cannot be changed, whats happening in Iraq today CAN be stopped if more people stood up against it and told our hideous government to pull out, it's our presence there which is exacerbating the violence. And yes, i do think the death of a 3 year old child is more important than the death of a cow. |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jun 18, 2008 1:13:04 GMT
The point I'm making is essentially one that, the loss of life is going to be brought about regardless of what we do or what we think we can do, and as I mentioned earlier... sometimes dying froms bombs and gunfire is probably better than the alternative where some will die of starvation and disease - which given the worlds current situation is more likely. But at the end of the day, my point is that the prioritising of death for whatever reason is not necessarily wise, it may seem harsh but when you think that there is consequentially less people to feed it means others are better off.
I agree the violence could be stopped, but in 10 - 20 years time it might be looked back upon as something which turned out to be beneficial, sometimes its better to take a nihilistic view of life; however, when the government has the power to sign over our country without us having a say in it - you have to wonder what you can actually do regardless of how strong you feel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthurdollar on Jun 18, 2008 7:58:36 GMT
Dave you could have made a name for yourself as a suicide driver and shot through the central reservation and slammed into the Bastard.
|
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jun 18, 2008 10:08:28 GMT
The point I'm making is essentially one that, the loss of life is going to be brought about regardless of what we do or what we think we can do, and as I mentioned earlier... sometimes dying froms bombs and gunfire is probably better than the alternative where some will die of starvation and disease - which given the worlds current situation is more likely. But at the end of the day, my point is that the prioritising of death for whatever reason is not necessarily wise, it may seem harsh but when you think that there is consequentially less people to feed it means others are better off. I agree the violence could be stopped, but in 10 - 20 years time it might be looked back upon as something which turned out to be beneficial, sometimes its better to take a nihilistic view of life; however, when the government has the power to sign over our country without us having a say in it - you have to wonder what you can actually do regardless of how strong you feel. You have a strange philosophy, and i think it would be entirely different if it were you and your family on the receiving end of the bombs, rather than sat in your comfy arm chair saying 'fuck it, they'll die someday anyway'. |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jun 18, 2008 10:59:03 GMT
Given that I had the same education, and spent the same amount of time trawling through philosophers, spending a few years studying a large amount of them and their ideals - my views would still be the same - but the emotions different. However, you can't say these bombings are evil/wrong unless you beleive in a god given morality - and that's a fact, the only morality that exists is a cultural one which varies between cultures, and it becomes impossible to judge anyone because in our culture a couple hundred years ago the hanging of children was legal, in tribes in africa canibalism was right. These are seen as wrong in todays society, yet in the future undoubtedly things we do will be seen as wrong too.
At the end of the day, the only way for these bombings to really make any difference, and for there to be any real reason to try and take action against them is if you believe in god; thats the only way they can be wrong by any measure - otherwise they are just the actions of man.
Society lives in a herd morality which is very restrictive upon the line of thinking many individuals go through, and do not confuse my words as saying I condone bombing, hanging etc. Merely a realisation that there is nothing intrinsically evil about these actions, you should read Nietzsche and you'd realise how predominant herd morality is in modern day society - where the stronger members of a society are expected to care for the weak and lazy members (dole a perfect example of this).
|
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jun 18, 2008 11:12:32 GMT
Given that I had the same education, and spent the same amount of time trawling through philosophers, spending a few years studying a large amount of them and their ideals - my views would still be the same - but the emotions different. However, you can't say these bombings are evil/wrong unless you beleive in a god given morality - and that's a fact, the only morality that exists is a cultural one which varies between cultures, and it becomes impossible to judge anyone because in our culture a couple hundred years ago the hanging of children was legal, in tribes in africa canibalism was right. These are seen as wrong in todays society, yet in the future undoubtedly things we do will be seen as wrong too. At the end of the day, the only way for these bombings to really make any difference, and for there to be any real reason to try and take action against them is if you believe in god; thats the only way they can be wrong by any measure - otherwise they are just the actions of man. Society lives in a herd morality which is very restrictive upon the line of thinking many individuals go through, and do not confuse my words as saying I condone bombing, hanging etc. Merely a realisation that there is nothing intrinsically evil about these actions, you should read Nietzsche and you'd realise how predominant herd morality is in modern day society - where the stronger members of a society are expected to care for the weak and lazy members (dole a perfect example of this). You don't have to believe in god to know that bombing innocent woman and children from the skies is wrong, you don't have to believe in god to know that selling a war on lies and then profiteering from that war is wrong. And i have Nietzche's 'the anti christ' on my book shelf but have not read it yet, but nothing could ever convince me that what is happening in Iraq is right, or that i should just be indifferent to it, and i most certainly don;t believe you have to be a believer in a god to think that it is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Jun 18, 2008 14:39:29 GMT
I'm not sure what santy's bit about God is all about?
Are you saying that God is a moral-reference point...or without God there is no morality?
I've heard the "Morality is a social-construct" - argument on many occasions and whilst acceptable at a GCSE Sociology level - is actually completely untenable
Man does have "free-will" or he is no different from a Geranium or a Tea-pot
We know innately whats right and wrong and we know it's wrong to cause pain to others, although sometimes this can be mitigated by "circumstantial" factors.
I Think, as someone once said, therefore I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jun 18, 2008 17:04:53 GMT
When President Clinton was in Derry a few years back,they had the fooking manholes welded shut, posts boxes had their letter holes blocked off, and the so called secret service were going round all dressed the same with sun glases on speaking up their sleeves. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jun 18, 2008 17:09:15 GMT
It was Descartes who said that, and morality varies from society to society, the point I made there is that what property of something is wrong? There is no physical or tenable thing which is wrong about any given action - the only way something can be categorically wrong is if god exists - if he doesn't then morality is nothing more than what society deems it to be. My point isn't that god is a moral reference point, or that without god there is no morality - only that the herd determines the morality for the masses, theres a lot of philosophers who touch on all aspects of morality from all perspectives. Kant believes things like killing are wrong regardless of the repercussions, Bentham believes you should maximise the happiness of the greatest amount.
There are many moral perspectives, I myself am more inclined to the Nietzsche approach, it can be witnessed through history how the church changed morality, now things like the media change it significantly.
The aim isn't to make you indifferent, or to do you need to believe in god for the perception to arise its wrong, but some people dont see it as wrong. The point about god is that only if god exists can you categorically, without any degree of error or misrepresentation say something is wrong.
At the end of the day if it was my decision would I bomb these people? No. From my own moral code I do believe it shouldn't happen, however, it isn't intrinsically wrong, no action is in my opinion.
Also to readdress the "I think therefore I am" statement, I dunno how much of descartes you studied, but that is the acid test he came up with, which only 2 things pass one is that you exist, the other is how something appears to you is how it appears to you (not even to say how it actually is) under Descartes theories, you can't be sure all this bombing in iraq is the deception of a demon as Descartes wrote (modern day equivalent is the matrix) and hell, you can't be sure any of your family, friends etc exist or how you look is even how you really look. Bit of a cooked up theory Descartes presented lol, but on the other hand is irrefutable.
I spent a few years studying morals and ethics hugely when I did philosophy, there will never be a definitive answer just what each has to their own, but a lot of peoples morals are heavily influeced by the time and country they live in. Serpico presented forth his views on it being wrong, I merely present my own views which enquire why he thinks its wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 18, 2008 17:59:02 GMT
We know if ID goes missing for months the CIA have him or he's discovered coffee again! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 18, 2008 19:01:37 GMT
Given that I had the same education, and spent the same amount of time trawling through philosophers, spending a few years studying a large amount of them and their ideals - my views would still be the same - but the emotions different. However, you can't say these bombings are evil/wrong unless you beleive in a god given morality - and that's a fact, the only morality that exists is a cultural one which varies between cultures, and it becomes impossible to judge anyone because in our culture a couple hundred years ago the hanging of children was legal, in tribes in africa canibalism was right. These are seen as wrong in todays society, yet in the future undoubtedly things we do will be seen as wrong too. At the end of the day, the only way for these bombings to really make any difference, and for there to be any real reason to try and take action against them is if you believe in god; thats the only way they can be wrong by any measure - otherwise they are just the actions of man. Society lives in a herd morality which is very restrictive upon the line of thinking many individuals go through, and do not confuse my words as saying I condone bombing, hanging etc. Merely a realisation that there is nothing intrinsically evil about these actions, you should read Nietzsche and you'd realise how predominant herd morality is in modern day society - where the stronger members of a society are expected to care for the weak and lazy members (dole a perfect example of this). Have you been reading wikipedia? ??? Spout your philosophist claptrap all you like but in the here and now thousands have died unecessarily and our "leaders" have blood on their hands. It's got bugger all to do with "herd instinct" and every thing to do with the black stuff that's gurgling around in Kurdistan ( estimate $5.4 TRILLION) and corporate America's desire to get their filthy hands on it. |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jun 19, 2008 1:51:57 GMT
Given that I had the same education, and spent the same amount of time trawling through philosophers, spending a few years studying a large amount of them and their ideals - my views would still be the same - but the emotions different. However, you can't say these bombings are evil/wrong unless you beleive in a god given morality - and that's a fact, the only morality that exists is a cultural one which varies between cultures, and it becomes impossible to judge anyone because in our culture a couple hundred years ago the hanging of children was legal, in tribes in africa canibalism was right. These are seen as wrong in todays society, yet in the future undoubtedly things we do will be seen as wrong too. At the end of the day, the only way for these bombings to really make any difference, and for there to be any real reason to try and take action against them is if you believe in god; thats the only way they can be wrong by any measure - otherwise they are just the actions of man. Society lives in a herd morality which is very restrictive upon the line of thinking many individuals go through, and do not confuse my words as saying I condone bombing, hanging etc. Merely a realisation that there is nothing intrinsically evil about these actions, you should read Nietzsche and you'd realise how predominant herd morality is in modern day society - where the stronger members of a society are expected to care for the weak and lazy members (dole a perfect example of this). Have you been reading wikipedia? ??? Spout your philosophist claptrap all you like but in the here and now thousands have died unecessarily and our "leaders" have blood on their hands. It's got bugger all to do with "herd instinct" and every thing to do with the black stuff that's gurgling around in Kurdistan ( estimate $5.4 TRILLION) and corporate America's desire to get their filthy hands on it. Herd instinct is the general consensus on things, eg homosexuality used to be considered wrong because of the way society was, just like in american racism was right at one time because of herd morality. Some aspects really are long standing and date back many years eg murder, rape etc. Others change during a societies lifespan. Herd instinct is not what it relates to either, it is merely a term used to describe the morality of the general masses, usually it is those in power who try to indoctrinate the values they want into society - religious institutions especially, sometimes they fail sometimes they succeed. Just think what the world would be like if they failed with making things like rape and peadophilia socially unacceptable, there would be some point in time where people wouldn't really care about these until someone began to say "thats wrong". |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 19, 2008 7:45:55 GMT
Have you been reading wikipedia? ??? Spout your philosophist claptrap all you like but in the here and now thousands have died unecessarily and our "leaders" have blood on their hands. It's got bugger all to do with "herd instinct" and every thing to do with the black stuff that's gurgling around in Kurdistan ( estimate $5.4 TRILLION) and corporate America's desire to get their filthy hands on it. Herd instinct is the general consensus on things, eg homosexuality used to be considered wrong because of the way society was, just like in american racism was right at one time because of herd morality. Some aspects really are long standing and date back many years eg murder, rape etc. Others change during a societies lifespan. Herd instinct is not what it relates to either, it is merely a term used to describe the morality of the general masses, usually it is those in power who try to indoctrinate the values they want into society - religious institutions especially, sometimes they fail sometimes they succeed. Just think what the world would be like if they failed with making things like rape and peadophilia socially unacceptable, there would be some point in time where people wouldn't really care about these until someone began to say "thats wrong". I don't neeed to think about it because they are deemed unacceptable. I really don't understand what point if any, you are trying to make here and how it relates to the issue in the thread itself. |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jun 19, 2008 10:20:56 GMT
I did initially make a response to the thread topic itself, and went off at a tangent to accomodate the things serpico said, and the only point to this was to examine the reasons serpico had for saying this was wrong etc. If he turned around and spouted teh dross some of the mindless people do, just jumping on the bandwagon I'd have had less respect for his views, but he put up some well thought stuff so I can respect the things he says on an intellectual level.
|
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Jun 19, 2008 17:39:27 GMT
Good post santy - you talk almost as much bollocks as me ;D Have some karma Staffsoatcake I have friends in Letterkenny - Is Derry/Londonderry still Stroke City? |
|
|
|
Post by daverichards on Jun 19, 2008 18:41:52 GMT
this thread has grown legs and walked off to find another tangent
|
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Jun 20, 2008 12:04:05 GMT
Epistomologically are you speaking metaphorically or metaphysically Dave? ;D Are your hypothesis based on the Hypothetico-Deductive-Method..or Heuristically 'discovered'? (help him out Santy) |
|
