Political/Government General Discussion : What amendment to the US Constitution would you add?

The Infidel Guy Show
The Debate Hour Show
Faith and Freethought
3 Podcasts, One Feed

or visit this page.

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Live Video and Chat Room

Freethought Videos

Blogs

Weblogs News

Embed Our Player

~ TIP JAR ~

What amendment to the US Constitution would you add?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13

AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Political/Government General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

cheapsuprise
Liberated

Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7288
Local time: 8:24 PM
Location: Next door.

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:29 am Post subject:

spozmo wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

All your saying is that you can "invent rules" and then fallow them.
This dosn't address weather or not the ends justify the means. Just because you invented some rules and then didn't break them dosn't mean that you didn't do anything wrong.

You're right; it doesn't address whether or not the ends justify the means. I'm still not convinced that "wrong" has any meaning outside of the arbitrary choice of one of these systems, though.

It dosn't mater that you are not convinced though. Since when was relativism correct by default?

Quote:

Your second statement assumes the existence of objective morality.

No it doesn't. BTW, so what if it DID? You've just taken on two additional problems. Firstly true morality could be completely abstract, and yet still sound, like mathematics for example. True morality could also be Objective, as I suspect you meant, but I think you will have adequate challenge in refuting that position.

spozmo wrote:

I agree that some ideas are right and that some are wrong, but contextually.

cheapsuprise wrote:

In what context would it be RIGHT for me to steel everything in your house, then burn your house down?

spozmo wrote:

It would be "right" for you within the context of a "morality game" which necessitated it.

cheapsurpise wrote:

You have to unload the connotation to assert this though, "you might as well replace steel everything in your house, then burn your house down" with "X".

spozmo wrote:

I'm not sure what "unload the connotation" means.

It means that you didn't realy answer my question. To simplify, I asked you when it would be right to steel from you, and you answered that it would be right to steel from you in a context where it was right to steel from you. You rephrased my question in the form of a proposition.

That's not answering the question.

Quote:

Why would you be "playing a game" where your house getting burned down by me was a rightful act?

I wouldn't. It may not be relevant whether or not I am playing it.

BINGO.

You can be hurt weather or not you know what's going on, or dare to have an opinion, as we all occupy the SAME reality.

Quote:

You would be appealing to a moral context OTHER than the one I held then. Why should you expect this to work? Remember that TO ME, burning down your house is RIGHT. How could you possibly convince me that It was wrong?

By making as aesthetic or emotional appeal.

We would have to share the same standards of those things for that to work then, wouldn't we?

Quote:

Why is everyone disregarding the farting example?

Because it's much more important that your house doesn't get burnt down?

Quote:

It's a bit silly, but it's an example of an attempt to change a behavior that does not rely on morality. I propose that all behaviors may be modified in this way.

So what?

Quote:

All the above realy states is that people could have vastly different "moral contexts" IOW, they THINK they are right. This is not much of a basis for morality, seeing as any one at any time can just claim to BE RIGHT. If some one else asks them to prove it, what are they going to do? Present an argument- based on what? Relativism is wrong because it's dependant upon the acknowledgement of a mutual reality.

The argument could be based on force, aesthetics, or pleasure.

...Or any other empty concept, such "holiness" for example. Just making an argument is not sufficient. The premises must be sound.

Quote:

It might be unsuccessful. It may be based on the shared assumption of certain non-moral principles, as well. The argument could even be based on a moral system, but it doesn't have to be true to be convincing. It could simply be a successful sophism. Your last sentence here assumes that morality falls out of this shared reality.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

I don't see that it does.

So what?

Quote:

This sounds like an appeal to consequences. "If we didn't have an objective basis for morality, we'd have no basis for morality other than our opinions." Sure. I'll take that. And?

And, the above is a straw-man. Understand that you can not strengthen your own position by throwing doubt on what you imagine my position to be.

Quote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Quote:

There is evidence against the "law of non-contradiction". See: cleave.

There is no evidence against the "law of non-contradiction". <--- Is that statement true or false? This is a trick question btw.

Again, contextually, it is false. In terms of our experience of the things around us, it is false. We experience things which contradict each other, particularly the language use I described above with "cleave" and quanta.

In terms of the way in which we reason, it is true. I cannot hold two contradictory ideas as true within my reason at the same time about the same thing unless I am holding them in two different respects.

In other words it's TRUE, if you don't indulge in a semantic fallacy, in which case it would be fallacious anyway.

Quantum mechanics dosn't tell you that you can argue against non-contradiction BTW.
That's like trying to use statistics to justify contradiction. IOW, There is a 60% probability that what you assert will be apparent once observed, there for it's true NOW, and so anything else could be both true and false until an observation... == New-age bullshit. It's a complete misapplication of concept.

It's not unlike those dumb asses who think that by observing a chair with your own eyes, you somehow change the chair, therefor telekinesis, or whatever, is possible. Physicists are not talking about LOOKING at a chair. They are talking about detecting a particle with an apparatus.

Quote:

My reason, though, leads me to both the use of the word "cleave" and to quantum physics (well... mine didn't lead me there, but somebody's did:)). Therefore, my reason leads to self-contradiction. I am not convinced there is some other faculty which doesn't.

Also, since when do people have to offer to prove the negative on these boards?

Your trying to prove a POSITIVE. You didn't know that? Relativism is not proven true.

Quote:

It seems that the existence of objective morality and non-contradiction are taken as articles of faith. I refuse to take things on faith. Moreover, there is some apparent evidence against them both. I have offered some of this evidence. Therefore, I am an amoralist.

No, you haven't offered any evidence.
_________________

spozmo
Forum Plebian

Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 200
Local time: 11:24 PM
Location: Annapolis, MD

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:02 am Post subject:

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

Care to explain or link to something I could read about it?

No problem.

http://www.mises.org/story/1646

spozmo wrote:

It seems from an initial reading that it relies on the idea of determinate concepts, which are an article of faith at best and more likely just bullshit.

Once again: you've wasted 5 fucking years on bullshit, so I think it's me who we'll be believing.

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that my objection to the idea of determinate concept stands.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

Anyhow, assuming that's the direction we were going, can you tell me how to determine what is in my self-interest?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

No, only you can.

spozmo wrote:

On what basis?

That it's your life, and you know best how to run it. I would think that's pretty fucking self-evident, wouldn't you? I mean: how the fuck am I supposed to know what's best for you? How is anyone else? It's your life. You have your own values. Your own goals. You are the one who knows best.

Obviously, you don't believe this, or you wouldn't be trying to convince me to change my viewpoint.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

Moreover, given the extreme scarcity of some resources, should I sit back and respect the property rights of someone who has something I need to live when there are no alternative sources of it?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Ah yes--the bullshit of "well, I have to do something, so theft is ok". Ummmm...no. Doesn't work like that, dumbfuck.

spozmo wrote:

Then how does it work?

Well, it works by not assuming a hollywood script filled with hatred of those who have more than you.

I'm not proposing an envy-based ethics. I'm not proposing that we base our lives on movies either.

Do you deny the existence of situations in which necessary resources are too scarce to support the number of people in a situation?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

How about quanta, which are both particles and not particles?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Oh sheesh--another postmodernist moron who doesn't understand physics. Take a fucking physics course, will you?

spozmo wrote:

I am currently studying quantum physics.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Then how is it you don't know shit about it?

spozmo wrote:

Given that I am siding with Bohr, Davis, Heisenberg, and Schroedinger on this one,

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

No, you're not. You're mangling what they said, you fucking idiot.

spozmo wrote:

Then tell me what they said.

That, for instance, photons, while a discrete packet, are merely just an electromagnetic wave. A specific burst to be sure, but a wave nonetheless.

Look: get over your postmodernist interpretation. Reality is what it is.

I wouldn't call myself a postmodernist, but that's irrelevant.

Sorry, but "discrete" and "wave" don't fit together like that. When it's discrete, it's essentially a particle.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

I'll use something less silly. I am driving a car. My goal is to get to my house (point B) from where I am (A).
There are a bunch of growing between the cracks in my driveway along the path directly between A and B. If I drive straight there, I will kill them. Therefore, I drive around them. I would recommend that another person do the same in the same situation in his driveway.

I would be appealing to the standard "beauty", which both of us could still disagree on, of course, but I would NOT BE APPEALING TO MORALITY.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

And, as such, you're changing the scope of the discussion. How nice of you to think you can throw that in and not get caught, you fucking idiot.

But feel free to continue in your self-delusion that I'm not handing you your ass in every post.

It seems at this point I have to agree with you. Discussing decision-making structures outside of morality is of a different scope than discussing decision-making structures within a theory of morality. But that's my whole f*cking point, so hey, I guess I'm stuck out here.

The morality you are proposing presupposes the possibility of universal standards of conversation. It then goes on to acknowledge that there are multiple standards of conversation. It also acknowledges that there are non-discursive standards of interaction. I fail to see why any of these takes precedent over any other except that one may better fit one context than another.

All people have the option of interacting with people as they interact with the gorilla. Moreover, changing the example to a pet, we have the option of things other than violence. We can also bribe and irritate people into agreement. We can also still appeal to the aesthetic or habitual standards of a person.

The idea that there is an implicit set of laws which people follow in their conversation is nonsense. There can be explicit laws. There can be loosely interconnected webs of possible rules, some which are followed by some people, some of which are followed by others, but none of which is followed by all. In fact, no two people need have a complete overlap on this web, which is to say that no two people need follow exactly the same sets of rules.

Some of them even contradict each other. For example, "retain your opinion" and "seek logical self-consistency" are both standards which could be reasonably proposed to exist in this web, but both of which commonly contradict each other. Also, "fully explore the topic" and "reach a conclusion".

This whole apriori of communication nonsense is just that. It neither establishes neither fundamental, nor particular, nor permanent standards of any kind.

That you formulate a proposition and present it to someone does not entail the huge leaps that are proposed in the article. It does not mean that you respect that person's right to themselves or their right to an opinion. It may mean any number of things: that you believe it to be easier to get what you want by arguing than by fighting, that you find it entertaining to hear them speak, that you have put them in a situation in which they recognize the danger to them if they do not respond...

Anyhow, the possibility of the alternative standard continues to be unresolved.

Moreover, you blatantly disregard the basis for your morality constantly. As you fail to act according to it, your claims lack credibility. Speaking of hypocrites... hot damn, man.
_________________
"There is too little love in the world to devote any of it to an imaginary being."-Nietzsche

"The hard work of one man does more than the prayers of millions."- A Bumper Sticker

spozmo
Forum Plebian

Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 200
Local time: 11:24 PM
Location: Annapolis, MD

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:13 am Post subject:

Conceded, cheapsurprise: Morality exists within the context of reason as built upon valid premises. What, in your opinion, validates a premise? Moreover, I still don't see reason as binding. I see that it's a shared context, but so is desire. I suppose that reason may be binding in that it is the most effective way to achieve what one desires most of them time. Isn't this a case of the ends justifying the means? _________________ "There is too little love in the world to devote any of it to an imaginary being."-Nietzsche "The hard work of one man does more than the prayers of millions."- A Bumper Sticker

Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster

Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 10:24 PM
Location: USA

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:44 am Post subject:

spozmo wrote:

It seems from an initial reading that it relies on the idea of determinate concepts, which are an article of faith at best and more likely just bullshit.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Once again: you've wasted 5 fucking years on bullshit, so I think it's me who we'll be believing.

spozmo wrote:

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that my objection to the idea of determinate concept stands.

You're good at deluding yourself.

spozmo wrote:

Anyhow, assuming that's the direction we were going, can you tell me how to determine what is in my self-interest?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

No, only you can.

spozmo wrote:

On what basis?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

Obviously, you don't believe this, or you wouldn't be trying to convince me to change my viewpoint.

Obviously I do, your non sequitur notwithstanding. I'm not telling you how to run your life; I'm correcting your erroneous assertions.

spozmo wrote:

Moreover, given the extreme scarcity of some resources, should I sit back and respect the property rights of someone who has something I need to live when there are no alternative sources of it?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Ah yes--the bullshit of "well, I have to do something, so theft is ok". Ummmm...no. Doesn't work like that, dumbfuck.

spozmo wrote:

Then how does it work?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Well, it works by not assuming a hollywood script filled with hatred of those who have more than you.

spozmo wrote:

I'm not proposing an envy-based ethics.

Then why your example? It's the ONLY reason behind it.

spozmo wrote:

How about quanta, which are both particles and not particles?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Oh sheesh--another postmodernist moron who doesn't understand physics. Take a fucking physics course, will you?

spozmo wrote:

I am currently studying quantum physics.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Then how is it you don't know shit about it?

spozmo wrote:

Given that I am siding with Bohr, Davis, Heisenberg, and Schroedinger on this one,

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

No, you're not. You're mangling what they said, you fucking idiot.

spozmo wrote:

Then tell me what they said.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

I wouldn't call myself a postmodernist, but that's irrelevant.

You wouldn't say a lot of things about yourself, but that's because those things are true and you just wish to deny them.

spozmo wrote:

Sorry, but "discrete" and "wave" don't fit together like that.

Flick your light switch on and off.

Discrete series of waves.

Fucking moron. You've wasted your time in school. WASTED. You've learned absolutely nothing, you fucking moron. NOTHING.

spozmo wrote:

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

You had a point? Wow. Why didn't you tell anyone else?

spozmo wrote:

The morality you are proposing presupposes the possibility of universal standards of conversation.

And we're communicating, so that obtains.

spozmo wrote:

It then goes on to acknowledge that there are multiple standards of conversation.

But only one valid one when dealing with human interaction.

spozmo wrote:

It also acknowledges that there are non-discursive standards of interaction. I fail to see why any of these takes precedent over any other except that one may better fit one context than another.

Yet another reason why you've wasted 5 fucking years.

spozmo wrote:

All people have the option of interacting with people as they interact with the gorilla.

They do, but that merely gets us the Hobbesean state of nature, and frankly: it still has a performative contradiction, as each person is acting.

spozmo wrote:

The idea that there is an implicit set of laws which people follow in their conversation is nonsense.

O RLY? Your wasted 5 years of schooling tells you this, does it?

spozmo wrote:

There can be explicit laws.

And there can't be implicit laws with that, you fucking moron?

spozmo wrote:

There can be loosely interconnected webs of possible rules,

aka implicit laws.

spozmo wrote:

Some of them even contradict each other.

Only when you, like you're doing, dishonestly seek to change the context of each one.

spozmo wrote:

This whole apriori of communication nonsense is just that. It neither establishes neither fundamental, nor particular, nor permanent standards of any kind.

Except that it does, and you're admitting such by disputing it.

spozmo wrote:

That you formulate a proposition and present it to someone does not entail the huge leaps that are proposed in the article.

But it does.

spozmo wrote:

It does not mean that you respect that person's right to themselves or their right to an opinion.

Then why try to change the person's mind?

spozmo wrote:

Moreover, you blatantly disregard the basis for your morality constantly.

No, I do not. Thank you for lying. But then, I've noticed that about you. When all else fails: lie your ass off and hope no one will call you on it.
_________________
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"

q_jordon
Visitor
Visitor

Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 4
Local time: 2:24 PM
Location: Northern Illinois

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject:

Must we change anymore of the Constitution, it is already a piece of crap since so many have fiddled with the original intent. I would not change the Constitution, but I would change a few decisions made by the Supreme Court. The first is the decision to allow companies to be view as a citizen. A company should not be allowed the same rights as an individual. It is what has created the United States of Corporations to thrive as of late. The second decision is something that needs to be enforced based upon the original intent of the Amendment. If a child is born within the U.S., that child is considered an American Citizen. What many fail to realize or study is this is only if the parents of that child had been legal or considered a legalized citizen at the time of that child's birth. This decision was made in rulings outside of the Amendment itself, but it is rarely used. Q

Philosophos
When we look at you, we see an asshole

Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9299
Local time: 11:24 PM
Location: In ur body cast

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject:

q_jordon wrote:

The first is the decision to allow companies to be view as a citizen. A company should not be allowed the same rights as an individual.

Ambrose Bierce wrote:

CORPORATION, n.
An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

_________________
Ass!
Hole!
Ass!
Hole!

spozmo
Forum Plebian

Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 200
Local time: 11:24 PM
Location: Annapolis, MD

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject:

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

Moreover, given the extreme scarcity of some resources, should I sit back and respect the property rights of someone who has something I need to live when there are no alternative sources of it?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Ah yes--the bullshit of "well, I have to do something, so theft is ok". Ummmm...no. Doesn't work like that, dumbfuck.

spozmo wrote:

Then how does it work?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Well, it works by not assuming a hollywood script filled with hatred of those who have more than you.

spozmo wrote:

I'm not proposing an envy-based ethics.

Then why your example? It's the ONLY reason behind it.

An ethics is a universal system of behavior. I was wondering how that situation should be resolved. For example, two people with no access to food but enough for one person. Either one can starve or can starve. One person owns the food, but is weaker. What do you propose the stronger person does?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

Sorry, but "discrete" and "wave" don't fit together like that.

Flick your light switch on and off.

Discrete series of waves.

Fucking moron. You've wasted your time in school. WASTED. You've learned absolutely nothing, you fucking moron. NOTHING.

Your opinion of my schooling notwithstanding, the discreteness to which I was referring was within the wave. There are discrete "bumps" which by all accounts fit into the category of particles. They do not fit into any theory as waves to the best of my knowledge.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Hot damn you're a dick.

Anyhow, my point was that there are other ways in which to appeal to people to stop them from doing something you don't want them to do. You asserted that I could only be appealing to morality. My point is that I could take other courses. I am responding to your accusation, not changing the scope. Try to follow.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

The morality you are proposing presupposes the possibility of universal standards of conversation.

And we're communicating, so that obtains.

First of all, barely. Second of all, I neither agree that the standards by which we are function are universal. Nor do I agree that they are in any way distinct. I don't believe that you've asserted that, but it's implicit.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

All people have the option of interacting with people as they interact with the gorilla.

They do, but that merely gets us the Hobbesean state of nature, and frankly: it still has a performative contradiction, as each person is acting.

I agree that we are both acting. By what standards are we acting? It doesn't seem that any of them could be called moral standards.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

It does not mean that you respect that person's right to themselves or their right to an opinion.

Then why try to change the person's mind?

Because it's more convenient.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

Moreover, you blatantly disregard the basis for your morality constantly.

No, I do not. Thank you for lying. But then, I've noticed that about you. When all else fails: lie your ass off and hope no one will call you on it.

Gee. You've got me trembling now. You caught me in my lie! I secretly believed in ~~God~~ morality the whole time and was just angry at ~~him~~ it!

Good job.
_________________
"There is too little love in the world to devote any of it to an imaginary being."-Nietzsche

"The hard work of one man does more than the prayers of millions."- A Bumper Sticker

lumpymunk
Forum Master

Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2190
Local time: 11:24 PM

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject:

backontopic No one has even answered my question about why the constitution needs amended. _________________ “Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs

Jane Austen
Forum Plebian

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 195
Local time: 11:24 PM
Location: St. Louis

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject:

Don't think anyone said it needs it, just if you could add something _________________ JANE I think that I shall never smell a poem as pugnant as a hell where grinning devils turn the screws on Saintly Sikhs and Upright Jews Giving them the holy scorcher, timeless, transcendent torture Poems can make you want to yell, But only God can give you Hell. -Phillip Appleman

Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster

Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 10:24 PM
Location: USA

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject:

spozmo wrote:

Moreover, given the extreme scarcity of some resources, should I sit back and respect the property rights of someone who has something I need to live when there are no alternative sources of it?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Ah yes--the bullshit of "well, I have to do something, so theft is ok". Ummmm...no. Doesn't work like that, dumbfuck.

spozmo wrote:

Then how does it work?

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Well, it works by not assuming a hollywood script filled with hatred of those who have more than you.

spozmo wrote:

I'm not proposing an envy-based ethics.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Then why your example? It's the ONLY reason behind it.

spozmo wrote:

An ethics is a universal system of behavior. I was wondering how that situation should be resolved.

And why is it always some bullshit hollywood script nonsense?

spozmo wrote:

Sorry, but "discrete" and "wave" don't fit together like that.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Flick your light switch on and off.

Discrete series of waves.

Fucking moron. You've wasted your time in school. WASTED. You've learned absolutely nothing, you fucking moron. NOTHING.

spozmo wrote:

Your opinion of my schooling notwithstanding, the discreteness to which I was referring was within the wave.

And it's the same thing.

You've wasted your time in school. You're an idiot and a poseur. Kill yourself.

spozmo wrote:

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

spozmo wrote:

Hot damn you're a dick.

And you're a fucktard.

spozmo wrote:

Anyhow, my point was that there are other ways in which to appeal to people to stop them from doing something you don't want them to do.

And in your example, you widened the scope. Congratulations on being a fucktard. Congratulations on a job well fucked-up.

spozmo wrote:

The morality you are proposing presupposes the possibility of universal standards of conversation.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

And we're communicating, so that obtains.

spozmo wrote:

First of all, barely.

No, we're communicating.

spozmo wrote:

Second of all, I neither agree that the standards by which we are function are universal.

That's like not agreeing that you exist.

spozmo wrote:

All people have the option of interacting with people as they interact with the gorilla.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

They do, but that merely gets us the Hobbesean state of nature, and frankly: it still has a performative contradiction, as each person is acting.

spozmo wrote:

I agree that we are both acting. By what standards are we acting?

The standard of action.

spozmo wrote:

It does not mean that you respect that person's right to themselves or their right to an opinion.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Then why try to change the person's mind?

spozmo wrote:

Because it's more convenient.

And in doing so, you necessarily respect that person's right to him or herself and the opinion.

spozmo wrote:

Moreover, you blatantly disregard the basis for your morality constantly.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

No, I do not. Thank you for lying. But then, I've noticed that about you. When all else fails: lie your ass off and hope no one will call you on it.

spozmo wrote:

Gee. You've got me trembling now. You caught me in my lie! I secretly believed in ~~God~~ morality the whole time and was just angry at ~~him~~ it!

Yet another lie from you.
_________________
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"

Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!

Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2537
Local time: 8:24 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject:

lumpymunk wrote:

*backontopic*

No one has even answered my question about why the constitution needs amended.

To more effectively codify the parts that should be "hands off" to the government yet the government still managed to get their hands all over it.

To make it more difficult for the government to operate.

To restrict the extra-constitutional activities of our government by replacing words that are clear yet deliberatly interpreted vaguely with words that are so clear you can't misinterpret them, even intentionally.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.

Visit my wife's art gallery

lumpymunk
Forum Master

Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2190
Local time: 11:24 PM

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject:

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

To more effectively codify the parts that should be "hands off" to the government yet the government still managed to get their hands all over it.

Or we could just underscore the principle that "If the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the Government the capacity/power to perform a certain service it should be interpreted that the government doesn't have that capacity/power."
It's not like "new amendments" will be respected where the old ones have been trampled on.

Quote:

To make it more difficult for the government to operate.

Same point applies... there is no reason to believe that congesting the legislative system will yield a higher degree of respect for that congestion. Half of the beauty of the Constitution is it's simplicity.

Quote:

To restrict the extra-constitutional activities of our government by replacing words that are clear yet deliberately interpreted vaguely with words that are so clear you can't misinterpret them, even intentionally.

A previous point applies as well, previous points only need to be underscored. If you find yourself interpreting the constitution, stop what you're doing... and hand the document to a literate toddler because then the words will be just plainly read without a spin, without manipulation... as was intended.

[logic]
If the goal is to limit the government
And the government ignores/misinterprets amendments
then there is no reason to believe new amendments won't be ignored.
[/logic]
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs

cheapsuprise
Liberated

Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7288
Local time: 8:24 PM
Location: Next door.

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject:

spozmo wrote:

Conceded, cheapsurprise:

Morality exists within the context of reason as built upon valid premises.

What context is there outside of reason though? People think that morality is this big fucken complex academic issue, but it's not.

Quote:

What, in your opinion, validates a premise?

Do you want a real world example of a valid premise? Otherwise, google it.

Quote:

Moreover, I still don't see reason as binding. I see that it's a shared context, but so is desire. I suppose that reason may be binding in that it is the most effective way to achieve what one desires most of them time.

Your just overcomplicating the obvious though. For example, YOU do not want to be murdered, correct?
In fact MOST people do not wish to be murdered. <------ An example of a valid premise BTW.

Quote:

Isn't this a case of the ends justifying the means?

No.
_________________

spozmo
Forum Plebian

Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 200
Local time: 11:24 PM
Location: Annapolis, MD

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:27 am Post subject:

cheapsuprise wrote:

spozmo wrote:

Conceded, cheapsurprise:

Morality exists within the context of reason as built upon valid premises.

What context is there outside of reason though? People think that morality is this big fucken complex academic issue, but it's not.

There are other contexts within which we are motivated to act, such as physical or emotional desire or need.

cheapsuprise wrote:

Quote:

What, in your opinion, validates a premise?

Do you want a real world example of a valid premise? Otherwise, google it.

I've been looking for a while, and I have failed to find a standard by which to say that a premise is valid which doesn't refer to another premise. For example: a premise is valid when it doesn't lead to self-contradictory results. This premise assumes a structure of logic and the law of non-contradiction as premises. Well, really only the latter as a premise. I suppose the former would be the result of the premise "this structure of logic is correct", which would be based on the latter premise, but anyway...

cheapsuprise wrote:

Quote:

Your just overcomplicating the obvious though. For example, Y