To save a child's life, you leave its mother to rot. Do you?
Just eat them both.
Problem solved. Erase all traces of both.
Follow me for more pearls of wisdom.
The blind leading the blind.
What a sight it would be.
Am I the only one wondering if MarcusA is a sock puppet of No One?
Yes!
lol
He could not possibly be a sock puppet of No One. No One does not have any exhibitionist tendencies, so I doubt he could even invent or fake MarcusA. MarcusA's posts could all be boiled down to three words: "Look at me!" But I say this with all love and respect, not casting aspersions or throwing stones. Just an observation.
marcus is a churning pot of introspection. and poetry
We have a right to liberty, not life. No-one is so precious as to demand life.
i disagree. if rights do exist, and for the moment i assert they do, then the right to left alone is preeminent.
to clarify, you have a right not to be murdered. but noone is obligated to save yuou.
Quote from: Tank on July 10, 2023, 10:16:10 AMAm I the only one wondering if MarcusA is a sock puppet of No One?
...
:headscratch:
...
... ...Not anymore. :sherlock:
Quote from: MarcusA on July 10, 2023, 07:20:00 AMTo save a child's life, you leave its mother to rot. Do you?
Ooh... This is a complex one, indeed. Would
I sacrifice a mother to save her child? I suppose situationally, I
might. I think... Hmm... Yes, I think that this can be boiled down to a personal property question. Whose (in terms of ownership) are the lives to forfeit - or not? May they delegate that decision? Under what, if any, circumstances may a third party interfere?
In the society I live in (for that matter, your wider society as well) a person does indeed have the right to live. It is not a blanket right, however. It protects you from certain events, but not others. The examples "in-breach-but-not" of said right may involve soldiers at war, people in palliative/end of life care, variations of the trolley problem (which you present here) and the like.
So... You have the right to live. That does not mean that you
will, or that any breach of said right is either remediable or attributable to malice.
what is a "right?"
under what authority is it granted or abrogated?
If you are dissatisfied with your life, you are at liberty to improve it.
Yes you are :)
Generally, when we talk about rights, we are talking about privileges that we can assert against governing authorities, whoever they may be. The right to life in the USA is something that the government has to observe when dealing with its citizens. It not absolute (no right is). Under the political philosophy that we adopted in the Declaration of Independence, certain rights are held to be "inalienable" - they cannot be taken away from the individual. They can be superseded, however, by other considerations. Jefferson said that the existence of these rights is "self-evident", and that they come from "the Creator". That could mean a deistic or theistic God, or the laws of nature - either is an acceptable interpretation. I think "self-evident" means that, based on our common human experience, our existence is more tolerable if we acknowledge these rights.
The right to life that an individual has basically means that he/she can enforce against the government/legal or political authorities the right not to have his/her life taken away arbitrarily by the government. One of the purposes of government is to protect these individual rights.
If you are talking about a general "right to life" to be enforced against Nature, it does not exist. Nature can remove our lives anytime it "wants". But the government can't (or it isn't supposed to be able to). So, to summarize, rights are privileges that we have that arise from our common human experience that we can enforce against governments, and which governments are supposed to acknowledge, subject to some other right or power superseding them. Life is one of those rights. Or, at least that is how it is supposed to be in the USA.
^ Well done commentary Ecurb.
i find rights to be a very, very interesting subject.
if rights are privileges to be asserted against governments, do they still exist in the absence of a government?
if two people are marooned on a desert island with no governing authority, do i have a right to defend myself if the other guy wants to survive by eating me?
the best definition i have been able to come up with for rights is that a right is a privilege that it would be wrong to deny.
this instantly brings up the question of right and wrong.
i would say that where there is no right or wrong, there are no rights.
^^^this is a theoretical definition. not a legal one
A right is a privilege.
A woman who cannot access abortion by law has had all of her privileges taken away.
Quote from: billy rubin on August 10, 2023, 10:09:59 PMif rights are privileges to be asserted against governments, do they still exist in the absence of a government?
Conceptually, sure, they may. Practically, however... Perhaps, but in that situation, you may be better off having a suitably long column of tanks to be able to successfully assert and defend them.
Quoteif two people are marooned on a desert island with no governing authority, do i have a right to defend myself if the other guy wants to survive by eating me?
If you assert that right and successfully defend it, you probably do. Note that your nation may lay certain claims on you even outside its territory, which could result in you exercising certain rights, then being unable to go home unmolested. In that situation though, your rights for practical purposes would be whatever you and that other person have agreed them to be. If you agree not to murder each other, you have a right not to be murdered. If you agree to "stay out of each other's heads," you have the right to free thought, etc.
Quotethe best definition i have been able to come up with for rights is that a right is a privilege that it would be wrong to deny.
Mmh... I'm not sure I agree with that definition. It's...
not wrong, but personally, I'd say that a right is a broadly-enough granted privilege or a broadly-enough agreed upon "social-contractual" obligation. As in, if you and enough "influence" in your society think that you deserve something - then you do. Terms and conditions may apply.
Quotei would say that where there is no right or wrong, there are no rights.
^^^this is a theoretical definition. not a legal one
I'm working with philosophical rather than legal too, and I agree, though from a opposite direction. Right and wrong arise from the abovedescribed agreements. If we both agree not to murder each other - well, then murder is wrong. If we do not - then it is not. At least, not by consensus. So, it's more "where there are no rights, there is no right and wrong," but again, this one is a matter of framing.
I think that the concept of rights precedes government, even if not described with that term. In any long-term aggregation of people, there must be some sort of agreement on the basic elements of group interaction. I wrote a longer item elsewhere on the idea of "inherent rights" from which I'll quote a snippet:
To exist as a species, human beings must recognize inherent worth of other human beings because of our nature as reasoning, social animals that do not possess any inherent hierarchy imposed by biology. That inherent worth is manifested by inherent rights.
Quote from: Recusant on August 15, 2023, 02:53:23 PMI think that the concept of rights precedes government, even if not described with that term. In any long-term aggregation of people, there must be some sort of agreement on the basic elements of group interaction. I wrote a longer item elsewhere on the idea of "inherent rights" from which I'll quote a snippet:
To exist as a species, human beings must recognize inherent worth of other human beings because of our nature as reasoning, social animals that do not possess any inherent hierarchy imposed by biology. That inherent worth is manifested by inherent rights.
Would that it was true. "Agreement on the basic elements of group interaction" "Because our nature as reasoning animals" The spectacular division of the U.S.citizenry, of late, has shot those scholarly notions all to hell.
I cheerfully subscribe to the philosophic intent. Unfortunately, about a third of my fellow Americans are armed and ready to cause an insurrection if they do not have their way. more than a few of them are quite convinced that the disaster in Maui was caused by space lasers, or bombing at the very least. The unholy cabal did it. Reasoning animals? not quite.
The social contract or agreement is in danger of breaking down in the USA. Even to the point that some woman from my home state feels like she can write a letter and call a federal judge in another state, call her a slave nigger, and threaten to kill her. This has existed under the surface forever, but Trump gave everyone permission to voice these negative thoughts. Too much more of this and the whole thing breaks down. It all comes down to the people, and we may find that we simply cannot govern ourselves. I hope I never see the day, but the signs are there.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 17, 2023, 03:10:01 PMThe social contract or agreement is in danger of breaking down in the USA. Even to the point that some woman from my home state feels like she can write a letter and call a federal judge in another state, call her a slave nigger, and threaten to kill her. This has existed under the surface forever, but Trump gave everyone permission to voice these negative thoughts. Too much more of this and the whole thing breaks down. It all comes down to the people, and we may find that we simply cannot govern ourselves. I hope I never see the day, but the signs are there.
A interesting insight.
Are not those thoughts better voiced? Otherwise, how can they ever be addressed?
Of course, on the flipside, the choices there may be war or slow decay, which... Yeah. It is interesting, were it not for people's lives.
It just keeps happening. Some Nazi wannabe who hates blacks walks into a Dollar Store and kills three people whom he did not know. With an AR-15 and body armor. WTF. I just do not understand that kind of hatred. And driving back to Texas (hell in August) from Maine (paradise in August) I pass some idiot selling Trump banners and, of all things, Confederate flags. No USA flags - just big Confederate flags. The idiot probably does not understand that the Confederate states tried to destroy the USA. Some idiots down here even fly Confederate flags right next to USA flags, and then get mad when they see a Mexican flag. If we could find a way to export stupid in this state we could all be billionaires. We keep growing bumper crops of it.
Over here, we have some laws and conventions governing the flying of flags. They are for things like the sizes of flags and flagging times and such like, but there may also be some that dictate the order of flags - for example that if you fly another nation's flag, it has to be in conjunction the national flag.
[EDIT]The Asmo from the future here. Got myself fascinated and read up on it. The local provisions are that when it is in the interests of international politeness, another nation's flag may be raised in public. So technically, I think I could raise the Swedish colours exclusively, if trying to be polite to them Swedes.[/end EDIT]
...But I'm spiraling off the point. I think that while you should be free to fly whatever symbols you want, exclusively flying one nation's flag on the territory of another is at best disrespectful. In this case, I'd apply that equally to the flag of Mexico, India or the Confederacy. Embassies and other national or trade representatives of those nations excluded. (where applicable, which in the case of the confederacy, it really is not)
Now, if you properly combine those flags with them stars and stripes... Then no problem. Get another flag pole and there you go.
Now, selling such symbols... Well... Sell whatever the hell you want, within reason. I have no more problem with a guy peddling MAGA hats and confederate flags than I would with someone peddling free hugs from Joe Biden and Argentina Forever pins. If that's your stock - then that's your stock.
i dont mind tbe right wing nutjobs. but i get tired of the ones who want their existence to consume my attention.
case in point
the other day a car stopped in traffic in front of mr. in big letters on the back was a sign reading
WHITE CHRISTIAN MALE
HOW ELSE MAY I OFFEND YOU?
point being, offending people who were different was part of tbis guys public identity.
im willing to get along with people, but the ones who take pride in being objectionable are not the ones im interested in accomodating
Just being defiant in his victimhood. :mustache:
an asshat.
And yet, if we were to put a sign about atheism on our vehicles...talk about offended!
i already have an american gay pride flag on my bumper.
if youre not getting hit by tbe rocks thrown at those you support
then youre not standing close enough
Quote from: billy rubin on August 29, 2023, 05:25:56 PMpoint being, offending people who were different was part of tbis guys public identity.
Is that what you took from it? Fair enough, I suppose.
Quoteim willing to get along with people, but the ones who take pride in being objectionable are not the ones im interested in accomodating
And the example you found was someone taking pride in who he is in spite of how
problematic someone might find it, while in the next breath you, and I quote,
Quote from: billy rubin on August 30, 2023, 02:34:36 AMi already have an american gay pride flag on my bumper.
If only there was a word to describe that... Something about hippos or some such... ;)
Linguistic flair aside, not accusing you of actively and wantonly being a hypocrite - not any more than is "human." However, it is worth pointing out that your pride flag is as much an interpretable statement as "I'm huwhite. How else may I be a problem?"
Quote from: billy rubin on August 30, 2023, 02:34:36 AMi already have an american gay pride flag on my bumper.
if youre not getting hit by tbe rocks thrown at those you support
then youre not standing close enough
Can I use the second two lines of that to build a meme?
Would be interested to see which way you go with the meme :smilenod:
Although it must be said that I'm a third-rate meme connaisseur at best. :(
Also,
Quote from: Dark Lightning on August 30, 2023, 01:28:14 AMAnd yet, if we were to put a sign about atheism on our vehicles...talk about offended!
This. Yes, "we" really
do should know better. Not in terms of never sticking stuff on "our" bumpers, but rather in how "we" judge others for doing so.
I'll try not to go on a massive rant, but it is fashionable these days to turn loose associations into movements and turn those movements political. And then, when you oppose a movement, you get called out for all sorts of bigotry. I have nothing against <insert thing>-sexuals, as long as their kinks only ever involve consenting adults or inanimate objects, but because I oppose the alphabet soup agenda-pushing, I must be a homophobe. I have nothing against Muslims, but because I oppose any notion that their holy book must be held in higher regard than kindling paper by those who do not follow their faith, I must be an islamophobe. I have nothing against black lives having value, but because I oppose rioting and looting as a means of establishing said value, I must be a racist.
I have nothing against Atheists, and when the tables are turned on me for being one, I do attempt to hold myself to a higher standard than what I described above. You can oppose ideas without drawing front lines... But then, I suppose that requires a more complex approach than what can be comfortably captioned onto a photo of a Shiba.
Meme culture sucks.
The Asmo wanders off, still ranting. He may or may not continue to rant for hours yet. Probably may. But maybe may not. The Asmos are mysterious like that.
Quote from: Asmodean on August 30, 2023, 09:52:00 AMMeme culture sucks.
There's no time for paragraphs in the culture wars.
That looks like a Marcusian meme.
It does not!
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on August 30, 2023, 10:57:20 AMIt does not!
Does, too! :o
The Pudding hath stared into the abyss, and the abyss staredeth back and its name was Marcus.
:grin:
:rofl:
Quote from: Asmodean on August 30, 2023, 11:24:05 AMQuote from: The Magic Pudding.. on August 30, 2023, 10:57:20 AMIt does not!
Does, too! :o
The Pudding hath stared into the abyss, and the abyss staredeth back and its name was Marcus.
:grin:
Hey, there is no comparison tween me and Marcus.
I made myself a big genius badge out of dried pasta and stuff from the recycling bin today. I'm a practical person. >:(
Ah, but it's as they say, if a meme fits - wear it like a stolen royal hat. :smilenod:
Quote from: Asmodean on August 30, 2023, 12:01:29 PMAh, but it's as they say, if a meme fits - wear it like a stolen royal hat. :smilenod:
You dare risk raising the ire of the Pud, so be it.
The tv series that is so brilliant, no superlative is super enough to describe it, Prime's adaption for TV of Robert Jordan's rather bland and ordinary Wheel of time novels is available Sept 1.
Ah, but is it still there if no-one sees it? Einstein thought it might be - other models of reality are available.
Quote from: Asmodean on August 30, 2023, 12:42:55 PMAh, but is it still there if no-one sees it? Einstein thought it might be - other models of reality are available.
You'll see it, I'll see it, some abominations you just have to see.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on August 30, 2023, 11:58:47 AMQuote from: Asmodean on August 30, 2023, 11:24:05 AMQuote from: The Magic Pudding.. on August 30, 2023, 10:57:20 AMIt does not!
Does, too! :o
The Pudding hath stared into the abyss, and the abyss staredeth back and its name was Marcus.
:grin:
Hey, there is no comparison tween me and Marcus.
I made myself a big genius badge out of dried pasta and stuff from the recycling bin today. I'm a practical person. >:(
You're both Australian aren't you? That's good enough for stereotyping! :)
:smilenod: There is that right there, too, and the Asmo is busy working on deviously-nefarious ways of making Pudding rhyme with Marcus.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on August 30, 2023, 12:48:15 PMYou'll see it, I'll see it, some abominations you just have to see.
Nope. The Asmo rejects the reality in which a nasty, malformed Moon exists unless He's looking at it. :snooty:
In seriousness though, should better business sense prevail and unless the shitshow gets fixed in season two, then I doubt there will be a season 3. Perhaps it's beyond saving even if season 2 is fixed... Rings of power certainly is, so there is that...
For the time being though, it's shit, which is disappointing, but hardly surprising, and while I would have loved a good - or even a good enough - adaptation, it's no skin off my teeth whatsoever to just not watch it.
Quote from: Asmodean on August 30, 2023, 12:55:10 PM:smilenod: There is that right there, too, and the Asmo is busy working on deviously-nefarious ways of making Pudding rhyme with Marcus.
The Marcusian Pudding?
No!
Oh, YES! :smilenod:
The Marcudding.
I love this place.
Maybe we should invite MarcusA back?
:o Not only no, HELL no!
How about giving him his own area of the forum and he can only post there?
Troll dump? ;D
On a more risible note, he's just been banned from AtheistForums.org. I don't know if it is a timeout or permanent, as I haven't seen a post by the administration about it yet.
:lol:
Quote from: Asmodean on August 30, 2023, 07:32:46 AMQuote from: billy rubin on August 29, 2023, 05:25:56 PMpoint being, offending people who were different was part of tbis guys public identity.
Is that what you took from it? Fair enough, I suppose.
Quoteim willing to get along with people, but the ones who take pride in being objectionable are not the ones im interested in accomodating
And the example you found was someone taking pride in who he is in spite of how problematic someone might find it, while in the next breath you, and I quote,
Quote from: billy rubin on August 30, 2023, 02:34:36 AMi already have an american gay pride flag on my bumper.
If only there was a word to describe that... Something about hippos or some such... ;)
Linguistic flair aside, not accusing you of actively and wantonly being a hypocrite - not any more than is "human." However, it is worth pointing out that your pride flag is as much an interpretable statement as "I'm huwhite. How else may I be a problem?"
i believe you are wrong in your assessment, asmo.
there is a difference between saying
i stand in support of thisand saying
fuck all of you who do not agree with me.think about it.
Quote from: Tank on August 30, 2023, 09:33:14 AMQuote from: billy rubin on August 30, 2023, 02:34:36 AMi already have an american gay pride flag on my bumper.
if youre not getting hit by tbe rocks thrown at those you support
then youre not standing close enough
Can I use the second two lines of that to build a meme?
absolutely. i didnt coin tbe phrasing, but i am increasingly intolerant of intolerance.
Quote from: billy rubin on August 31, 2023, 01:44:30 AMi believe you are wrong in your assessment, asmo.
Perhaps, but thus far, I'm afraid I must insist on it. Here's why;
I am not a huwhite Christian, nor am I a part of the alphabet community, nor a supporter of either. Therefore, my view is from the outside.
When I see someone saying, "White Christian. How else may I offend you?" I take from that that the individual in question is who he is and if you have a problem with that - well, fuck you then.
When I see a rainbow flag, I see someone saying "I'm gay. You got a problem with that? Well, fuck you then."
Both are perfectly fine.
Of course, you don't have to be anywhere near as charitable to the white Christian gentleman, but then, why would you be any more charitable to the pride flag? The answer, obviously enough, is that
you would be because it is
your banner, while the other is an "enemy" one.
So, if I were to go with your interpretation of the message the white Christian tried to send, may I also assume that you flying that particular flag means that you are OK with prepubescent children twerking for money or consider MAP a valid sexual orientation?
Note that I am being slightly hyperbolic since there are particular varieations of the pride flag to include or exclude certain stripes and symbols. Whatever yours may be, however, I
could, with receipts, read a lot of unpalatable politics into it.
So,
Quotethere is a difference between saying
i stand in support of this
and saying
fuck all of you who do not agree with me.
think about it.
There is, but is that indeed what's being said? Is that what's being
heard? Could it perhaps easily appear in the exact opposite order to the right set of ears?