News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Lying:

Started by Bad Penny II, May 03, 2018, 02:00:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Old Seer

Quote from: billy rubin on January 17, 2020, 10:57:27 AM
interesting. your use of the term "evil" is similar to the american use of the legal term "assault." assault is defined as a threat of harm coupled to the ability to carry out the threat. the threat must be apparent to the one threatened. in contrast, "battery" is an actual co ntact.

so if i walk up to you and raize my fist intending to ztrike you, and cause you to fear for yoyr zafety, i have assaulted you. if i do the same thing while your back iz turned so that you are unaware, there iz no assault.

like wise. you seem to zay that if i carry out an act that is to your detriment. but you are unaware, it is not evil. evil can only occur if the recipient recognizes it.

what happens if i perform an act that you do not recognize as harmful until later? does the act begin as neutral and then change to evil at a subsequent time?

for example if i were to set fire to a structure, intending to kill you, but you were not inside and under no threat. later you discover that you are actually trapped close enough to be injured.  burning tbe structure would have no ultimate value of good or evil, but would be one or the other as the situation changed.
What you're equating here is, willful damage upon another. That's why there are civilizations, to curb such behavior. What your, getting into is humane vs inhumane. That goes into "person type" which would be another subject. By natural construction of a person amounts to is, beings have a sense of human vs inhumane characters.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Old Seer

Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 17, 2020, 12:13:09 PM
Quote from: Old Seer on January 16, 2020, 04:08:16 PM
Nature works both ways. Nature cannot be right or wrong, it only can be good or evil. But good and evil are only relative to people as nature cannot be be good or evil to itself. Good and evil can only be reckoned as to what help or harm happens to what can comprehend the help or harm.
No, I don't think so, your neighbour asks you to look after her 1, 3 and 5 year old children while she goes to the shop. You say ye and proceed to blind all three with a bodkin. You've assaulted my sensibility some but it's not about what you've done to me, it's what I recognise in you and your actions.

Noun: evil
1. Morally objectionable behaviour
2. That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
3. The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Quote from: Old Seer on January 16, 2020, 04:08:16 PMBefore cogitation the universe didn't contain good or evil, and good and evil can only come about when there is a being to comprehend it. So, before people there was no good or evil.
I hope we're including other sentient life forms in our definition of people.
Morality is what's human vs what is inhuman. That ventures into person type, or psychology.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Bad Penny II

Quote from: billy rubin on January 17, 2020, 02:49:26 PM
i make my decizions from a philosophical pozition of absurdity, davin. given an exiztentialist position of ultimate nihilizm, i reject the idea that there is meaning to exiztence. there is neither an ultimate meazure to compare meaning to, nor iz there a zelf-derived meani g to seek out in our exiztenxe.

zo i choose to act in a manner that appearz to be moral, for my own emotional and aezthetic reasons. tbere s no ul timate advantage in doing so, but it doeznt matter what i choose, becauze all choices are equally absurd. i pick one that looks good to me and use it to derive a model for living. but im under no lilusionz that i have chozen something of actual value.

You don't have to keep saying that like it's you're great discovery, most of us learnt it by the time we were eighteen.

Quote from: billy rubin on January 17, 2020, 02:49:26 PM
in order to illustrate my queztion correctly. what do you consider to be natural and at tbe zame time good?
Fuck me side ways and maybe you'll make sense.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Davin

Quote from: billy rubin on January 17, 2020, 02:49:26 PM
i make my decizions from a philosophical pozition of absurdity[...]
I see you have chosen the dishonest avoidance option. So you have not abandoned all measures then? Either you lied when you said you did, or you do not make decisions. If you have truly dropped all measures, then if you're owed $100 but only receive a potato, then you would be oblivious to the difference. Absurd, indeed.

The point I'm making, is that we all use measures to decide things. We almost always use multiple measures to decide on things. Something being natural or not is one such measure, but rarely ever the sole measure for a person to decide on something.

Quote from: billy rubin
regardi g good or evil. i chooze examplez in order to illustrate my queztion correctly. what do you consider to be natural and at tbe zame time good? deztroying rivalz in mating increases my genetic reprezentation in subsequent generations . iz that good? seems so. fighting over territory provides more security for my children. that zeems good az well, but you have juzt said that tbey are examplez of what iz bad.

why?
I consider eating to be natural and at the same time good. I consider a mother caring for her child to be natural and at the same time good. I consider sleeping to be natural and at the same time good. I consider being comfortable to be natural and at the same time good. And many more things.

As I have already stated, what is natural is not always good or always bad and is quite often neutral. But you only bring in bad examples and refuse to acknowledge any good examples, which is clearly demonstrating that you have an irrational bias. If you were truly interested in how other people think, then you should be willing to accept their positions. But you seem to be highly resistant to accepting how other people think, which makes me think that you're not actually interested in how other people think and are more interested in trying to tear other people down.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Old Seer on January 17, 2020, 03:32:36 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 17, 2020, 12:13:09 PM
Quote from: Old Seer on January 16, 2020, 04:08:16 PM
Nature works both ways. Nature cannot be right or wrong, it only can be good or evil. But good and evil are only relative to people as nature cannot be be good or evil to itself. Good and evil can only be reckoned as to what help or harm happens to what can comprehend the help or harm.
No, I don't think so, your neighbour asks you to look after her 1, 3 and 5 year old children while she goes to the shop. You say ye and proceed to blind all three with a bodkin. You've assaulted my sensibility some but it's not about what you've done to me, it's what I recognise in you and your actions.

Noun: evil
1. Morally objectionable behaviour
2. That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
3. The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Quote from: Old Seer on January 16, 2020, 04:08:16 PMBefore cogitation the universe didn't contain good or evil, and good and evil can only come about when there is a being to comprehend it. So, before people there was no good or evil.
I hope we're including other sentient life forms in our definition of people.
Morality is what's human vs what is inhuman. That ventures into person type, or psychology.

So you say but I see no reason to humour you.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

billy rubin

#110
Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 17, 2020, 03:34:55 PM

You don't have to keep saying that like it's you're great discovery, most of us learnt it by the time we were eighteen.

davin asked.  seems he missed our earlier discussion.

every day is a new day to me anyway.

Quote
Quote from: billy rubin on January 17, 2020, 02:49:26 PM
in order to illustrate my queztion correctly. what do you consider to be natural and at tbe zame time good?
Fuck me side ways and maybe you'll make sense.

lol

that might or might not be natural.


more people have been to berlin than i have

Davin

Quote from: billy rubin on January 17, 2020, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 17, 2020, 03:34:55 PM

You don't have to keep saying that like it's you're great discovery, most of us learnt it by the time we were eighteen.

davin asked.  seems he missed our earlier discussion.
You answered a question I did not ask.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

billy rubin

well

then you learned something you did not expect.


more people have been to berlin than i have

Davin

Quote from: billy rubin on January 17, 2020, 05:33:56 PM
well

then you learned something you did not expect.
Doesn't make it any less useless, but I did expect it.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

billy rubin



more people have been to berlin than i have

Inertialmass

I have been shocked to discover people who are considered to be, and who claim to be, upright, honest, non-lying, respected members of Internet Forums but are then caught creating and using sockpuppets.

Isn't it an egregious form of lying, an insidious breach of trust, to make and use online sockpuppets?

Or is this all a kinda "make believe" world of avatars and anonymous personalities anyhow, where anything goes???

Dark Lightning

Have you spotted a sock here, or is this something you've observed elsewhere?

Inertialmass

The socks were elsewhere!  Sorry, I should have been clear.  My interest is in whether there's a real moral gray area, or is the creation of these trust-busting frauds a genuine, outright lie?



Recusant

There are shades of grey in sock puppetry as in most human endeavours.  I'm of the opinion that their ethical implications depend entirely on their intended purpose.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken