| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Moloth
In-tool-lectual
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23218
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | On the contrary: I know a lot |
| gnosis wrote: | | By all means, elaborate. |
I have been. Have you not been reading? Have your eyes so filled with teary-tears that you can no longer see the monitor? |
i have the inexplicable urge to hug KnoB and tell him that everything is going to be okay...
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2650
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
I have been. Have you not been reading? Have your eyes so filled with teary-tears that you can no longer see the monitor? |
No you haven't. Yes, I have been reading. Yes, my eyes have been filled with tears of joy from laughing at your idiocy.
(I think I'm starting to get the hang of this whole "KnoBspeak") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlatEarth1024
Rogue Admin, mad with power!
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 5967
Local time: 12:38 AM
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | On the contrary: I know a lot |
| gnosis wrote: | | By all means, elaborate. |
I have been. Have you not been reading? Have your eyes so filled with teary-tears that you can no longer see the monitor? |
i have the inexplicable urge to hug KnoB and tell him that everything is going to be okay... |
fag
_________________
Complaint, breech of rules? PM A MOD
Need help? Have a question? CONTACT A MOD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:38 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
I have been. Have you not been reading? Have your eyes so filled with teary-tears that you can no longer see the monitor? |
| gnosis wrote: | | No you haven't. |
Yes, I have.
| gnosis wrote: | | Yes, I have been reading. |
No, you haven't
| gnosis wrote: | | Yes, my eyes have been filled with tears of joy from laughing at your idiocy. |
Such a bold statement from such a small mind. Why don't you try showing me that your intellectual check you've just written has some funds behind it
| gnosis wrote: | | (I think I'm starting to get the hang of this whole "KnoBspeak") |
You're not. You're just another in a long line of whining children who don't like it when I gainsay unsupported assertions. You, like the rest of the morons, seem to think I have to disprove your unproven assertions. I am under no such obligation.
When you learn to back your claims, I'll consider treating you better. Until then: I will treat you as I have been.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2650
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
You're not. You're just another in a long line of whining children who don't like it when I gainsay unsupported assertions. You, like the rest of the morons, seem to think I have to disprove your unproven assertions. I am under no such obligation.
When you learn to back your claims, I'll consider treating you better. Until then: I will treat you as I have been. |
Yes, I am. You're just another in a long line of pontificating demagogues who don't like it when I actually support my assertions with the opinions of educated intellectuals far beyond your capacity. You, like the rest of the fools, seem to think I have to disprove your unproven assertions. I take this on as an obligation to educate you in that which you choose to completely disregard in your completely closed-minded ideological fanaticism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:38 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
You're not. You're just another in a long line of whining children who don't like it when I gainsay unsupported assertions. You, like the rest of the morons, seem to think I have to disprove your unproven assertions. I am under no such obligation.
When you learn to back your claims, I'll consider treating you better. Until then: I will treat you as I have been. |
No, you're not. You're just another in a long line of whining idiots who's way the fuck out of his league and won't admit it. Your overinflated sense of your intelligence has caused you to grossly overestimate the efficacy and veracity of your statements. You firmly believe that just because you say something, that makes it true. Reality doesn't work like that, and I will not disprove your unproven assertions. I have no desire to waste my time providing an argument when you refuse to make one in the first place.
Your little fantasy world is crumbling around you. I suggest you take some time to look at the whatever you thought the foundation of your worldview was and change it. Your closed-minded fanatical dedication to your childish dogma has left your ego in tatters. Go and soothe your butthurt in the salve of knowledge.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2650
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
No, you're not. You're just another in a long line of whining idiots who's way the fuck out of his league and won't admit it. Your overinflated sense of your intelligence has caused you to grossly overestimate the efficacy and veracity of your statements. You firmly believe that just because you say something, that makes it true. Reality doesn't work like that, and I will not disprove your unproven assertions. I have no desire to waste my time providing an argument when you refuse to make one in the first place.
Your little fantasy world is crumbling around you. I suggest you take some time to look at the whatever you thought the foundation of your worldview was and change it. Your closed-minded fanatical dedication to your childish dogma has left your ego in tatters. Go and soothe your butthurt in the salve of knowledge. |
Wow, that's way too much bullshit to even attempt to replicate. It's a lot of work to keep up, I think I'm gonna need a bigger shovel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:38 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | No, you're not. You're just another in a long line of whining idiots who's way the fuck out of his league and won't admit it. Your overinflated sense of your intelligence has caused you to grossly overestimate the efficacy and veracity of your statements. You firmly believe that just because you say something, that makes it true. Reality doesn't work like that, and I will not disprove your unproven assertions. I have no desire to waste my time providing an argument when you refuse to make one in the first place.
Your little fantasy world is crumbling around you. I suggest you take some time to look at the whatever you thought the foundation of your worldview was and change it. Your closed-minded fanatical dedication to your childish dogma has left your ego in tatters. Go and soothe your butthurt in the salve of knowledge. |
| gnosis wrote: | | Wow, that's way too much bullshit to even attempt to replicate. |
IOW: it's all completely true, and little gnosis is about to run.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 849
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: A neighborhood in South Philly most of you would avoid
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | gnosis wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | Welfare is welfare, whether it is welfare for the rich or welfare for the poor, and just as wrong either way. |
Welfare for those who are already rich is equivalent to helping the poor eh? Compassion must be a sin to those who have economics as a religion it seems. |
Theft is theft, no matter who you give the loot to. |
Yep, but are you saying you'd have the same moral opinion of someone who robs banks and distributes the money to the needy as someone who snatches old ladies' purses so he can buy more bling? In my opinion they may both be thieves, but the former has a moral compass (or at least a strong conscience) and the latter is just a scumbag.
_________________
Fuck off |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 3383
Local time: 4:38 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | gnosis wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | Welfare is welfare, whether it is welfare for the rich or welfare for the poor, and just as wrong either way. |
Welfare for those who are already rich is equivalent to helping the poor eh? Compassion must be a sin to those who have economics as a religion it seems. |
Helping the poor != welfare for the poor.
Welfare != compassion.
Theft is theft, no matter who you give the loot to.
|
Yep, but are you saying you'd have the same moral opinion of someone who robs banks and distributes the money to the needy as someone who snatches old ladies' purses so he can buy more bling? In my opinion they may both be thieves, but the former has a moral compass and the latter is just a scumbag. |
In my opinion, they're both scumbags. How many innocent people are hurt by the bank robber? He has to threaten to kill front line employees, the tellers, as well as any customers who happen to be in the bank at the time, including some who may be in his distribution clientel, and the police who try to chatch him as he attempts to flee with money that does not belong to him. Neither has a moral compass. One of them thinks he does, but it's not magnetized like a compass should be and instead is just spinning idly.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 849
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: A neighborhood in South Philly most of you would avoid
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | gnosis wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | Welfare is welfare, whether it is welfare for the rich or welfare for the poor, and just as wrong either way. |
Welfare for those who are already rich is equivalent to helping the poor eh? Compassion must be a sin to those who have economics as a religion it seems. |
Helping the poor != welfare for the poor.
Welfare != compassion.
Theft is theft, no matter who you give the loot to.
|
Yep, but are you saying you'd have the same moral opinion of someone who robs banks and distributes the money to the needy as someone who snatches old ladies' purses so he can buy more bling? In my opinion they may both be thieves, but the former has a moral compass and the latter is just a scumbag. |
In my opinion, they're both scumbags. How many innocent people are hurt by the bank robber? He has to threaten to kill front line employees, the tellers, as well as any customers who happen to be in the bank at the time, including some who may be in his distribution clientel. Neither has a moral compass. One of them thinks he does, but it's not magnetized like a compass should be and instead is just spinning idly. |
The fact remains that one is motivated by his concern for others and the other is concerned with only himself. Now if you are taking an egoist moral position like Ayn Rand, or have a conception of "virtue" like Nietzche or the Classical Greeks, then concern for others is not necessarily a desirable moral trait. But for me, and for most people, concern for others is a desirable moral trait, thus in the above example, regardless of the practical effects of their respective actions (when it comes to ethics I lean more deontological than consequential), the moral character of the bank robber is, IMO, superior to that of the purse-snatcher b/c his motivations are not purely selfish.
_________________
Fuck off |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Forum Master
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 4133
Local time: 2:38 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | The fact remains that one is motivated by his concern for others and the other is concerned with only himself. |
So what?
Hitler was motivated by his concern for others, for the entire human race actually.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 3383
Local time: 4:38 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | [quote="GodlesIn my opinion, they're both scumbags. How many innocent people are hurt by the bank robber? He has to threaten to kill front line employees, the tellers, as well as any customers who happen to be in the bank at the time, including some who may be in his distribution clientel. Neither has a moral compass. One of them thinks he does, but it's not magnetized like a compass should be and instead is just spinning idly. |
The fact remains that one is motivated by his concern for others and the other is concerned with only himself. Now if you are taking an egoist moral position like Ayn Rand, or have a conception of "virtue" like Nietzche or the Classical Greeks, then concern for others is not necessarily a desirable moral trait. But for me, and for most people, concern for others is a desirable moral trait, thus in the above example, regardless of the practical effects of their respective actions (when it comes to ethics I lean more deontological than consequential), the moral character of the bank robber is, IMO, superior to that of the purse-snatcher b/c his motivations are not purely selfish. |
Are you sure that they have such different motivations? The bank robber in your example may want to be seen as personally a hero, and thus does things that he thinks a hero does, but personally doesn't give a damn about the poor at all. But even if he was acting out of concern for the poor, his actions still do not show any concern for others because of the othes he fails to consider. How many people must he hurt in order to show his faux generosity to the poor? Do not those people he hurts have any consideration in your telling me he is so morally superior? "Sure he killed a bank teller and also killed a minimum wage worker trying to deposit his paycheck, but he did so because he wanted to give money to the poor."
Good intent is not enough. He may wind up hurting the poor but plead "but I meant to help" as a way to absolve himself of any damage he does. If he hurts them in the process of helping them (as many social workers do) do you still excuse him because of his motivations?
The more you excuse based on motivation, the worse your position becomes. Some of the most horrible events in history are based entirely on someone trying to impose their own vision of what is good for everyone else on everyone else whether they wanted it or not.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 849
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: A neighborhood in South Philly most of you would avoid
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | Godless Red Scum wrote: | | The fact remains that one is motivated by his concern for others and the other is concerned with only himself. |
So what?
Hitler was motivated by his concern for others, for the entire human race actually. |
You're in the woods with your mom. She falls gravely ill. You have to travel by foot to the nearest town and find a doctor. The aforementioned bank robber is at a camp site North of you, the aforementioned purse snatcher at a camp site South of you. Your mom needs someone to attend to her while you get the doctor. Who do you trust more to look after your mom?
Now we can exchange clever ethical arguments all day, but for me, on a gut level, it's easy-- the guy who robs the rich to give to the poor is a better person than the guy who robs the poor to make himself rich. The first guy I could be friends with, I could potentially trust-- the second guy is a piece of shit who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw.
_________________
Fuck off |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 849
Local time: 7:38 PM
Location: A neighborhood in South Philly most of you would avoid
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: |
But even if he was acting out of concern for the poor, his actions still do not show any concern for others because of the othes he fails to consider. How many people must he hurt in order to show his faux generosity to the poor? Do not those people he hurts have any consideration in your telling me he is so morally superior? "Sure he killed a bank teller and also killed a minimum wage worker trying to deposit his paycheck, but he did so because he wanted to give money to the poor." |
Then fuck the bank robber, how bout an unarmed cat burglar? Goes into rich people's homes, steals jewelry and fences it to give money to a homeless shelter?
You're getting bogged down in the details of the matter, when the point is I believe that who a person robs and what they do with the money can make a difference in terms of how I view their moral character. I could potentially see the cat burglar/bank robber as an honorable person, but I'd never see the purse snatcher as anything but a scumbag.
| Quote: | | Good intent is not enough. He may wind up hurting the poor but plead "but I meant to help" as a way to absolve himself of any damage he does. If he hurts them in the process of helping them (as many social workers do) do you still excuse him because of his motivations? |
No it wouldn't excuse his actions, but it mitigates my opinion of his character somewhat. I wouldn't see him as a psychopathic bully, like I'd see the purse snatcher.
_________________
Fuck off |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
