|
InvisibleBlack -> RE: Misogyny and BDSM (1/4/2010 6:08:31 PM)
|
This thread was a complete trainwreck but I have to admit I did find parts of it amusing. It's amazing how much you can tell about someone just based on the manner in which they disagree about something with someone else. In any event, a couple of comments:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Icarys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kimveri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
It's my 154 IQ that makes me a genius. ;)
When mine was tested as a child it was 174.
That's all??
...& people say I am not intelligent!....geeeez...
;-P
I is only 137 an at a edumacation lebel of ate grwade..but I did stay at a holiday inn once.[:D]
In general, when someone's starts throwing their IQ around in the midst of a debate, I take it as a sign that they're out of anything relevant to say. A valid point is a valid point no matter who makes it. A concept is valid no matter where it comes from. If my IQ is higher than everyone else's who posted here, it does not necessarily follow that my beliefs are more right nor that my thesis is somehow more logically correct. I've known any number of brilliant people who believed all sorts of utter tripe.
Whipping your dick out and grabbing a ruler is only a valid debating tactic if you're arguing over who has the bigger dick. Then again ... maybe that's what this was all about anyway.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
quote:
Why don't you go back and read Invisible Black's post about definitions and reconsider your refusal to entertain them?
I read his post. While I think "mores" or "values" are better terms or what he calls "socialital ethics," I thought his post was pretty spot on.
You're gone now, dude, but just to say - I agree with you - "mores" is a better term for a culture's or a society's shared value system. I would use "values" as a term relating to someone's personall code of conduct ... but that's me. Before I started fighting over whose view of morality is superior, I would make certain we both agree on what "morals" and "morality" meant.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella
What the police do is necessary. I'm not sure what, specifically, is unethical about what they do.
They lie to, intimidate, assault, kidnap, enslave and murder people. We just call it interrogation, arrest, imprisonment and capital punishment. Essentially if you were to do what the police do, you would be a criminal.
That's why I disagree with your "ethics are the same for everyone" claim. Because I don't believe that police should be held to the same ethical standards as civilians. I don't think that policework is unethical.
See ... this is a perfect example of where working with your terms comes into play (pardon me for a moment, Elisabella whilst I dissect your comments). If you claim that the police, or the government, or whoever, must act unethically out of pragmatism - you are viewing ethics in a certain way - that not all pragmatic actions are ethical. I could look at the example and say that if a police officer refused to apprehend, arrest and incarcerate a felon, he would be acting unethically. It would then seem to me we're using very different definitions of ethics.
If you're saying that the government acts unethically, but that if it acted ethically it would result in harm to a larger number of people than it would if it continued to act in its current "unethical" fashion, then it would seem that there is some problem with your definition or application of "ethics".
Some of the best moral quandries result from pushing someone into a situation where they are confronted with the need to perform an action they have moral problems with in order to prevent a situation or a result that they have even bigger moral problems with. These situations force someone to confront their beliefs and make value judgements - and everyone faces these issues during their life.
Personal values evolve. Societal mores evolve and often come into conflict with each other. If there is a truly universal morality, then it has to allow for someone acting as best they can, with only the information they possess, attempting to derive the result they view as optimal for everyone and everything. If it cannot allow an honest, well-meaning police officer attempting to stop a murderer to be viewed as at least ethically equal to a civilian working to provide for their home and family (or whatever decent scenario you care to concoct) then I think it's not truly universal.
quote:
ORIGINAL: EbonyWood
I bet Kant had a real parlor.
Okay. I have to say, I laughed so hard I hurt myself.
Ow.
Lastly ... what did any of this have to do with misogyny? Wait. Nevermind.
|
|
|
|
