[quote]pookie wrote:
I’m pretty certain they could afford it, but didn’t want to.
Wow. Arguing with “I’m pretty certain” sure it easy. No pesky facts or evidence to keep track of. Just claim that what you’d like to be actually is (pretty certainly) and run with it. [/quote]
Yeah, my bad for giving people the benefit of the doubt. Your cynicism is refreshing. Thank you.
Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara…? Nope. No Arabs there.
And you probably meant to capitalize that “a”.
[quote]new2training wrote:
Within that statement though is the acknowledgement that there is a “Reality.” No matter how different or imperfect our various perceptions of that Reality, there is one Reality.
[/quote]
This is a very metaphysical question. Certainly the fact that I can sit here and type is a testament to an existence which I can call reality. I do believe there is a reality because there is nothing one can do to disprove it. It is not really reality that that is different but rather the perceptions that differ.
For example, defining the concept of color and then defining the concept of the specific color red. We understand color to be a reality just the same as we understand red to be a reality. How do you explain this concept to the man who cannot perceive color or better still cannot perceive certain colors?
All knowledge must be perceived from external reality otherwise we are just robots taking orders without the concept of self action, incapable of learning.
Think about this: even the concept of learning involves self directed action. But I digress…
Yes. I can go as far to say that if truth exists it has to be absolute. I only contend that there are certain concepts which necessarily fall outside the realm of truth. Belief is one such concept. If something cannot be understood as truth there can be no absolute knowledge of it – and hence it has to be relative.
To say there exists an absolute truth is to say that there is nothing more that can be understood about such facts. There must be absolute truths but this does not mean there cannot be relative knowledge. Truth and knowledge are related concepts. Truth is what is, and knowledge is what is understood. Knowledge does not necessarily have to be truth. You can envision a person acting with an incorrect theory, arriving at an incorrect solution. That is not truth just a display of incorrect knowledge.
Even in axiomatic concepts such as mathematics we cannot begin to understand notions as truth until we define our terms. I don’t know if you are aware of Immanual Kant but he was obsessed with this topic viz. Critique of Pure Reason.
Absolutely, I do act out of principle. I am guided by morals. That is what it means to act correctly. Being a relativist does not mean I am amoral – however, one might call me immoral based on what one believes to be correct action.
As a relativist I cannot advocate a universally true way of acting. I know what I believe to be true and I am strong enough to defend it – intellectually strong, to boot.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Of course it’s wrong .[/quote] Why do you think it is wrong?
Again, why is this immoral? Who says? What if the theoretical guy on your mom does not think it is wrong?
Not by all accounts. The furthest thing from it. Millions of people would disagree with the fact that this man owns the girl. Quite a few on this small discussion board do.
[quote]He owns her and therefore can do whatever he wants with his property. Try to convince him he is wrong.
Besides this I never said I agree with the actions. .[/quote]
If you don’t agree with the actions, why not? What I’m trying to get at is, I don’t think you are a relativist at all. I think you are a better person than that.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
How can you - other than just for the sake of argument - even ask such an ignorant question?
Because he is an intellectual - or, at least, he wishes we thought he was.
At the risk of sounding like a dumbass - there is right and there is wrong.
In certain situations, even entertaining an intellectual argument proves ones own stupidity.
The little girl is 11 fucking years-old. Anyone that thinks an 11 year-old is capable of entering a consensual proposition such as marriage/rape/submission should be dragged to the town square and tortured.
How many of you moral relativist assholes have a daughter? The rules change drastically once you have something to defend. [/quote]
Everything you’ve said here is about as far from being ‘dumbass’ as a man can get. Excellent post!
[quote]new2training wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Of course it’s wrong . Why do you think it is wrong?
to molest my mom in a coma – I have the strength to defend it. Causing pain is irrelevant to morality. Taking something by force that does not belong to you is immoral
Again, why is this immoral? Who says? What if the theoretical guy on your mom does not think it is wrong?
[/quote]
Because I believe it is wrong and I am strong enough to stop it. My morals go beyond just saying something is wrong or right – I am willing to exert myself to stop it in defense of waht I believe. In fact, I would consider it immoral not to protect my mom.
Saying something and so and acting in such a matter as to stop it are two completely different things. My highest moral is put up or shut up. Sometimes that is understood as walk the talk and don’t just talk the talk.
I though I did a better job explaining this. I only know how I would behave. Does this mean I am acting with universal morality – i.e., absolute morality.
I am not amoral – in fact, this is an impossible notion. Acting implies one has a moral code that drives one’s behavior. People who are said to always follow their moral guides are said to be principled.
I might be immoral – but that is relative.
[quote]new2training wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Of course it’s wrong . Why do you think it is wrong?
to molest my mom in a coma – I have the strength to defend it. Causing pain is irrelevant to morality. Taking something by force that does not belong to you is immoral
Again, why is this immoral? Who says? What if the theoretical guy on your mom does not think it is wrong?
By all accounts this man owns this girl.
Not by all accounts. The furthest thing from it. Millions of people would disagree with the fact that this man owns the girl. Quite a few on this small discussion board do.
He owns her and therefore can do whatever he wants with his property. Try to convince him he is wrong.
Besides this I never said I agree with the actions. .
If you don’t agree with the actions, why not? What I’m trying to get at is, I don’t think you are a relativist at all. I think you are a better person than that.
[/quote]
I agree, he’s a good old bird, he just doesn’t want anyone to know.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
new2training wrote:
Within that statement though is the acknowledgement that there is a “Reality.” No matter how different or imperfect our various perceptions of that Reality, there is one Reality.
This is a very metaphysical question. Certainly the fact that I can sit here and type is a testament to an existence which I can call reality. I do believe there is a reality because there is nothing one can do to disprove it. It is not really reality that that is different but rather the perceptions that differ.
For example, defining the concept of color and then defining the concept of the specific color red. We understand color to be a reality just the same as we understand red to be a reality. How do you explain this concept to the man who cannot perceive color or better still cannot perceive certain colors?
All knowledge must be perceived from external reality otherwise we are just robots taking orders without the concept of self action, incapable of learning.
Think about this: even the concept of learning involves self directed action. But I digress…
Is it such a leap to believe that if there is a Reality, independent of differing perceptions of it, then there are certains things within it that just “are.” Such as the concept of right and wrong. Not only the concept of right and wrong but also right actions and right beliefs that are a disctinct and integral part of that reality.
Yes. I can go as far to say that if truth exists it has to be absolute. I only contend that there are certain concepts which necessarily fall outside the realm of truth. Belief is one such concept. If something cannot be understood as truth there can be no absolute knowledge of it – and hence it has to be relative.
To say there exists an absolute truth is to say that there is nothing more that can be understood about such facts. There must be absolute truths but this does not mean there cannot be relative knowledge. Truth and knowledge are related concepts. Truth is what is, and knowledge is what is understood. Knowledge does not necessarily have to be truth. You can envision a person acting with an incorrect theory, arriving at an incorrect solution. That is not truth just a display of incorrect knowledge.
Even in axiomatic concepts such as mathematics we cannot begin to understand notions as truth until we define our terms. I don’t know if you are aware of Immanual Kant but he was obsessed with this topic viz. Critique of Pure Reason.
I’m still not certain how a relativist such as yourself makes life decisions. Don’t you have a moral code by which you live? I’m pretty sure the man behind the name Liftic does not go around stealing, raping, and killing.
Picture this - you see a man beating a child to death in an alley. You could physically put a stop to it at no risk to yourself. What would Liftic do?
I imagine that a true relativist would shrug their shoulders and say, “It must be okay within that man’s own moral framework to kill that child. Who am I to say he is wrong to do so?” Then go on his way to Starbucks and get a latte.
I don’t think you would choose nonaction in that scenario. If you did intervene. Why would you?
I’m curious, what would you do Liftic?
I think on an intellectual level relativism is an interesting concept but I do not think many people are truly relativists.
Absolutely, I do act out of principle. I am guided by morals. That is what it means to act correctly. Being a relativist does not mean I am amoral – however, one might call me immoral based on what one believes to be correct action.
As a relativist I cannot advocate a universally true way of acting. I know what I believe to be true and I am strong enough to defend it – intellectually strong, to boot.[/quote]
Thank you for your response. I want to reflect on parts of it some more before I respond. We definitely have a difference of opinions but as a professed relativist you understand that.
I am glad to hear that you are not amoral. I was under the assumption that it was the natural progression of relativism to become amoral. According you you, that was an incorrect assumption.
How is it not though?
I’m still curious to know what you would do if you observe the kid being beaten to death?
My question then, from a relativist point of view is - which path is of the highest order?
To allow someone to excercise their own set of morals even if they directly contradict yours OR to impose your morals on that person. i.e. the man in the alley killing the child in front of you.
When two people have opposing views which they both think are “right” there will be by necessity a conflict or one will have to turn a blind eye and allow something to go on that they believe is not right.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
new2training wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Of course it’s wrong . Why do you think it is wrong?
to molest my mom in a coma – I have the strength to defend it. Causing pain is irrelevant to morality. Taking something by force that does not belong to you is immoral
Again, why is this immoral? Who says? What if the theoretical guy on your mom does not think it is wrong?
By all accounts this man owns this girl.
Not by all accounts. The furthest thing from it. Millions of people would disagree with the fact that this man owns the girl. Quite a few on this small discussion board do.
He owns her and therefore can do whatever he wants with his property. Try to convince him he is wrong.
Besides this I never said I agree with the actions. .
If you don’t agree with the actions, why not? What I’m trying to get at is, I don’t think you are a relativist at all. I think you are a better person than that.
I agree, he’s a good old bird, he just doesn’t want anyone to know.
[/quote]
I wonder if he will let me do his mom.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I though I did a better job explaining this. [/quote]
I’m dense sometimes 
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
As a relativist I cannot advocate a universally true way of acting. I know what I believe to be true and I am strong enough to defend it – intellectually strong, to boot.[/quote]
Heh. Very telling that you have to remind us that you are “intellectually strong” - a clear signal you don’t think we would otherwise think it.
You’d be right.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Because I believe it is wrong and I am strong enough to stop it. My morals go beyond just saying something is wrong or right – I am willing to exert myself to stop it in defense of waht I believe. In fact, I would consider it immoral not to protect my mom.
.[/quote]
Okay, that answers my questions. As long as I am able to impose my morality on others I suppose I can be a relativist too.
Lucky for you bastards my morality mostly involves leaving everyone else alone.
Thanks Liftic. Enjoyed the conversation (seriously). Merry Christmas!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pat36 wrote:
new2training wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Of course it’s wrong . Why do you think it is wrong?
to molest my mom in a coma – I have the strength to defend it. Causing pain is irrelevant to morality. Taking something by force that does not belong to you is immoral
Again, why is this immoral? Who says? What if the theoretical guy on your mom does not think it is wrong?
By all accounts this man owns this girl.
Not by all accounts. The furthest thing from it. Millions of people would disagree with the fact that this man owns the girl. Quite a few on this small discussion board do.
He owns her and therefore can do whatever he wants with his property. Try to convince him he is wrong.
Besides this I never said I agree with the actions. .
If you don’t agree with the actions, why not? What I’m trying to get at is, I don’t think you are a relativist at all. I think you are a better person than that.
I agree, he’s a good old bird, he just doesn’t want anyone to know.
I wonder if he will let me do his mom.[/quote]
It’s all relative.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
My problem here is that nitpicking about everything won’t do the trick. Perhaps even on the contrary. As it is, most muslims see themselves morally far above us.
So it seems to me that we need to find real issues. Like genital mutilation. Or education.
No conservative afghani tribesman will see the malice in taking that child as a woman. He will point out that her fate was sealed when her parents decided to sell her. And that the money she raised did something good to her parents.
Change won’t come from the old generations. It never does. Educating the new and upcoming generations is the best way to effect change. There’s a reason the Taliban oppose and burn down NATO built schools in Afghanistan. They’re well aware that an educated population won’t be oppressed so easily; that they’ll demand compromise and change.
The problem is that we can’t go invading everywhere and doing the work for them. For one, they’ll resent us and resist the changes, no matter how good they’d be for them; second, it’s much better for a culture to change from within. It makes for longer-lasting change.
What we can do, though, is use available means of communication to denounce unfairness, injustice and indignity where we see it. We can see to it that our politicians do not support regressive regimes out of convenience. Modern wars are fought almost more in the Public Relations arena than on the battlefield (think of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict of last year…); there is no reason why the same World Opinion cannot eventually be an agent of change. If King Abdullah can be pressured into pardoning a rape victim in Saudi Arabia and the Sudanese government convinced of releasing the teddy bear teacher, then other changes can happen. We just need less people trying to explain and excuse those evil acts, and more people loudly condemning them and drawing attention to these matters.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
I see there is much middle ground here.
Still, we have to pick the important issues in dealing with the arabic world.
Just ranting against everything is counterproductive. Sadly, marrying a child is definitely one such thing.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara…? Nope. No Arabs there.
And you probably meant to capitalize that “a”.[/quote]
No, I think it’s just fine with a lowercase letter. A capital letter lends it an undeserved air of respectability.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The speed of light is a special case – hence it is called “Special Relativity” and gravity is a general case.[/quote]
Holy crap. Why it’s called Special Relativity is not because the speed of light is a special case…
Very amusing though.
Says the rock-shaped guy at the bottom of the well.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Fair enough.
I see there is much middle ground here.
Still, we have to pick the important issues in dealing with the arabic world.
Just ranting against everything is counterproductive. Sadly, marrying a child is definitely one such thing. [/quote]
A whole slew of problems stem from the simple fact that women are second rate persons in the Islamic world. That and oversensitivity to anything that can be interpreted in the slightest way as an insult to their primitive religion.
I’d concentrate on getting the women equal rights with men. The religion part will follow or mellow away by itself after. Primitive societies are always the most religious ones. The countries with the highest proportions of non-practicing theists or outright atheists are all considered “advanced,” modern nations.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Heh. Very telling that you have to remind us that you are “intellectually strong”
[/quote]
People like you might not understand the distinction between physical and intellectual strength if it wasn’t clearly defined.
I don’t assume. I always attempt to define my terms.
[quote]new2training wrote:
When two people have opposing views which they both think are “right” there will be by necessity a conflict or one will have to turn a blind eye and allow something to go on that they believe is not right.
[/quote]
Agreed. We call this compromising.
My methodology is pretty simple:
I just put myself in the circumstances of all actors. This man has presumably lived this way his whole life. Would I want someone coming from outside to tell me how I am supposed to behave? Once we do this do we accept the moral obligation to do this in all cases; and is not acting in this way then considered immoral?
Let’s assume no physical harm has befallen this girl – including mental anguish because it was always assumed this would be her fate even if she didn’t understand it as such. Is this girl being victimized?
I do not oppose the idea that we can correctly influence people to behave the way we desire. This is the way we raise our children the most effectively. We try to set the example. We try to not send mixed signals to them. Children are not sophisticated enough to understand relative behavior. They only understand absolutes – like many adults. This is another proof of moral relativism, “Do as I say not as I do.”
Parents understand that sometimes certain circumstances call for certain actions that go against one’s moral principle. This is relativism.
In my opinion stealing is immoral but what if I had to watch my child starve. Which is more immoral?
How one behaves in this circumstance is relative to what one values more. Most people would act to preserve their child’s life. Morality is relative.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t assume. I always attempt to define my terms.[/quote]
Probably a good idea. If you hadn’t told us that you were “intellectually strong”, certainly none of us would have ever come to that conclusion as a matter of independently reading your posts.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Why it’s called Special Relativity is not because the speed of light is a special case…
[/quote]
Yes it is…light is non-inertial because it has no mass. That something has an inertial frame implies it has mass.
Non-inertial frames are a “special case”. Light is a special case because it is non-inertial.
Sorry for not being precise enough.