FSTDT Refugee Board
« Cowboy's Call to Action! »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 21, 2013, 3:09pm

[Home] [New Topics] [Help] [Search] [Login] [Register]



FSTDT Refugee Board :: FSTDT Community :: Politics and Government :: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Page 27 of 30 » Jump to page   Go    [Search This Thread] [Share Topic] [Print]
AuthorTopic: Cowboy's Call to Action! (Read 6,362 times)
ltfred
God
*****
member is offline





Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,236
Location: In the highest room
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #390 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:00pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 9:53pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 9:46pm, ltfred wrote:


So, by your definition, for instance an amoral person would be one who acts without regard to the morality of their actions? For instance, purely in their self-interest?

Or, in other words, exactly what I said.

Um...no, nothing like you said. It is neither moral nor immoral. How does that mean "purely in one's self-interest"? That makes no sense.


People act in their self-interest normally, right? The only time people don't is when they are stopped by morality. However, an amoral person does not consider morality when considering an action. An immoral person considers an actions morally wrong but does it anyway.

Or, in other words, your definition.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
"You... expect mindless following of laws."

"the rules are different for the collective (government)."
m52nickerson

"Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”
Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots
devilschaplain2
Guest
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #391 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:02pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 9:58pm, ltfred wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 9:52pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

But since I didn't make that claim, who cares?


I made the claim that corporations are treated as poeople, which is not good for all sorts of reasons. You responded with:

"But corporations are treated as a single entity, especially under environmental law. That's how corporations are treated as a "person", which isn't a bad thing."

The only argument I can see there is that corporations are treated as a single entity, or a person. Since this is so, 'this isn't a bad thing'.

And I said I felt it made it easier to prosecute a single entity and fine it if it breaks the law. They have to submit reports about environmental activities (at least in the U.S.) and what they say isn't covered as free speech but rather commercial speech :P
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
devilschaplain2
Guest
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #392 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:03pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 10:00pm, ltfred wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 9:53pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

Um...no, nothing like you said. It is neither moral nor immoral. How does that mean "purely in one's self-interest"? That makes no sense.


People act in their self-interest normally, right? The only time people don't is when they are stopped by morality. However, an amoral person does not consider morality when considering an action. An immoral person considers an actions morally wrong but does it anyway.

Or, in other words, your definition.

It's not a matter of not considering it. The action cannot be moral or immoral, but rather neutral. It has nothing to say on self-interest. So the garbage you were talking about had nothing to do with my definition...
« Last Edit: Apr 24, 2009, 10:03pm by devilschaplain2 »Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
ltfred
God
*****
member is offline





Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,236
Location: In the highest room
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #393 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:06pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 9:55pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 9:49pm, ltfred wrote:


What is suicide bombing? To launch an attack that will almost certainly cause your death. For instance, all modern Medal of Honour recipients were dead when they were awarded their medals.

Not "almost certainly", but an attack that WILL cause your death. For example, a kamikaze strike or a person with a bomb vest. Just because a person was dead when they won the Medal of Honor doesn't make it a suicide bombing. Don't be dense.


Charging towards a line of machineguns will cause your death. Landing in a helicopter with just the two of you without support in the middle of an armed and angry mob out to get you will cause death.

Anyways, my point was, everyone considers death in the course of an attack when we do it as medal-worthy, but the worst possible crime when they do it.

In fact, nothing is certain, because of Quantum uncertainty. The bomb might turn into a shrubbery. It's possible.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
"You... expect mindless following of laws."

"the rules are different for the collective (government)."
m52nickerson

"Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”
Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots
the sandman
Global Moderator
*****
Resident Demented Old Fool
member is offline

[avatar]

Come on, tell Big Papa Smurf all about it.....



Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,001,822
Location: in yer cassel advisin yer king
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #394 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:07pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 9:49pm, ltfred wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 9:26pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

Coming from someone who doesn't know enough U.S. history to understand the Civil War and who thinks U.S. troops receive a Medal of Honor for "suicide bombing" civilians, I'm not sure if your opinion matters.


What is suicide bombing? To launch an attack that will almost certainly cause your death. For instance, all modern Medal of Honour recipients were dead when they were awarded their medals.


No, a "suicide bombing" is using explosives to deliberately and with forethought cause your own death and the death of others, usually (at least in the modern context) the death of innocents.

The posthumous Medal of Honor winners do not fit this description, even if you remove the "explosives" part. They did not engage in their actions with the deliberate and pre-determined intention of causing their own deaths.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
"Did you ever have one of those moments when you think, How the HELL did I get here? Geeze what HAPPENED to me? I was ruling the galaxy! Had a cherry new battlestation. I mean, this place had an omlet bar. A straight-up OMLET bar! Now look. My former intern's tossin me down a bottemless freaking pit. Come to think of it, my whole life has been a series of what the fuck moments." -Palpatine
devilschaplain2
Guest
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #395 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:08pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 10:06pm, ltfred wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 9:55pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

Not "almost certainly", but an attack that WILL cause your death. For example, a kamikaze strike or a person with a bomb vest. Just because a person was dead when they won the Medal of Honor doesn't make it a suicide bombing. Don't be dense.


Charging towards a line of machineguns will cause your death. Landing in a helicopter with just the two of you without support in the middle of an armed and angry mob out to get you will cause death.

Anyways, my point was, everyone considers death in the course of an attack when we do it as medal-worthy, but the worst possible crime when they do it.

In fact, nothing is certain, because of Quantum uncertainty. The bomb might turn into a shrubbery. It's possible.

But charging towards a line of machinegun fire isn't a suicide bombing.

Yes, I know this is Wiki and all, but this is the sort of thing I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombing
Now, how do our soldiers do this?....
« Last Edit: Apr 24, 2009, 10:09pm by devilschaplain2 »Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
ltfred
God
*****
member is offline





Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,236
Location: In the highest room
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #396 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:11pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 10:03pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 10:00pm, ltfred wrote:


People act in their self-interest normally, right? The only time people don't is when they are stopped by morality. However, an amoral person does not consider morality when considering an action. An immoral person considers an actions morally wrong but does it anyway.

Or, in other words, your definition.

It's not a matter of not considering it. The action cannot be moral or immoral, but rather neutral. It has nothing to say on self-interest. So the garbage you were talking about had nothing to do with my definition...


That is indeed one of your definitions:

a⋅mor⋅al
not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

'Without moral quality' would be a rock or a lake or something.

It's your first definition that's interesting. A decision made without involving questions of right and wrong is amoral. A person who makes such decisions, and acts in pure self-interest, is amoral. As I said.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
"You... expect mindless following of laws."

"the rules are different for the collective (government)."
m52nickerson

"Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”
Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots
ltfred
God
*****
member is offline





Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,236
Location: In the highest room
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #397 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:13pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 10:08pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 10:06pm, ltfred wrote:


Charging towards a line of machineguns will cause your death. Landing in a helicopter with just the two of you without support in the middle of an armed and angry mob out to get you will cause death.

Anyways, my point was, everyone considers death in the course of an attack when we do it as medal-worthy, but the worst possible crime when they do it.

In fact, nothing is certain, because of Quantum uncertainty. The bomb might turn into a shrubbery. It's possible.

But charging towards a line of machinegun fire isn't a suicide bombing.


So we agree that it is suicide? It is as certain as the universe will allow of causing death?

Right. Now all we need is the bombing. If the person in question uses a grenade to assault said machine-guns, or to hold back said crowd, they are, in a very real way, bombing people.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
"You... expect mindless following of laws."

"the rules are different for the collective (government)."
m52nickerson

"Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”
Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots
devilschaplain2
Guest
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #398 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:15pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 10:11pm, ltfred wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 10:03pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

It's not a matter of not considering it. The action cannot be moral or immoral, but rather neutral. It has nothing to say on self-interest. So the garbage you were talking about had nothing to do with my definition...


That is indeed one of your definitions:

a⋅mor⋅al
not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

'Without moral quality' would be a rock or a lake or something.

It's your first definition that's interesting. A decision made without involving questions of right and wrong is amoral. A person who makes such decisions, and acts in pure self-interest, is amoral. As I said.

Nothing in that definition refers to acting according to one's own self-interest. Perhaps you should give up on trying to warp the definition?
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
devilschaplain2
Guest
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #399 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:17pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 10:13pm, ltfred wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 10:08pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

But charging towards a line of machinegun fire isn't a suicide bombing.


So we agree that it is suicide? It is as certain as the universe will allow of causing death?

Right. Now all we need is the bombing. If the person in question uses a grenade to assault said machine-guns, or to hold back said crowd, they are, in a very real way, bombing people.

No, we don't agree that it is a suicide at all. They are not trying to kill themselves. And using grenades? That's really stretching it there. I'm sorry but that attempt at logic fails.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
dasfuchs
God
*****
member is offline

[avatar]

Prussians, the original Godwins



Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,018
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #400 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:17pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 9:49pm, ltfred wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 9:26pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

Coming from someone who doesn't know enough U.S. history to understand the Civil War and who thinks U.S. troops receive a Medal of Honor for "suicide bombing" civilians, I'm not sure if your opinion matters.


What is suicide bombing? To launch an attack that will almost certainly cause your death. For instance, all modern Medal of Honour recipients were dead when they were awarded their medals.

Audie Murphey died in WWII?
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
dasfuchs
God
*****
member is offline

[avatar]

Prussians, the original Godwins



Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,018
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #401 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:20pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 10:13pm, ltfred wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 10:08pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

But charging towards a line of machinegun fire isn't a suicide bombing.


So we agree that it is suicide? It is as certain as the universe will allow of causing death?

Right. Now all we need is the bombing. If the person in question uses a grenade to assault said machine-guns, or to hold back said crowd, they are, in a very real way, bombing people.

I would put it at might, it's not a garuntee you will die, there's a high probabillity, but not a garuntee
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
ltfred
God
*****
member is offline





Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,236
Location: In the highest room
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #402 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:23pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 10:07pm, the sandman wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 9:49pm, ltfred wrote:


What is suicide bombing? To launch an attack that will almost certainly cause your death. For instance, all modern Medal of Honour recipients were dead when they were awarded their medals.


No, a "suicide bombing" is using explosives to deliberately and with forethoughtcause your own death and the death of others, usually (at least in the modern context) the death of innocents.


Aha. Here is the rub. Killing innocents (be they civilians or whatever) is morally wrong. That is the only morally wrong part of this act. There, in fact, is nothing more morally wrong about a bombing that kills a bunch of innocent people and the perpetrator than a bombing that kills a bunch of innocent people but not the perpetrator.


Apr 24, 2009, 10:07pm, the sandman wrote:
They did not engage in their actions with the deliberate and pre-determined intention of causing their own deaths.


Then suicide bomber cannot be said to be suicide bombers, either. I'm sure that they'd love to be able to come back and blow up another market square over and over. What suicide bombers do is enter into an action knowing that it will almost certainly cause their own deaths, but not necessarily with that intention.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
"You... expect mindless following of laws."

"the rules are different for the collective (government)."
m52nickerson

"Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”
Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots
ltfred
God
*****
member is offline





Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,236
Location: In the highest room
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #403 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:25pm »

Apr 24, 2009, 10:15pm, devilschaplain2 wrote:

Apr 24, 2009, 10:11pm, ltfred wrote:


That is indeed one of your definitions:

a⋅mor⋅al
not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

'Without moral quality' would be a rock or a lake or something.

It's your first definition that's interesting. A decision made without involving questions of right and wrong is amoral. A person who makes such decisions, and acts in pure self-interest, is amoral. As I said.

Nothing in that definition refers to acting according to one's own self-interest.


And it doesn't need to. I merely added in the other part of the equation- the alternative motivation for actions, which is self-interest.


Quote:
Perhaps you should give up on trying to warp the definition?


Ad hominem.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
"You... expect mindless following of laws."

"the rules are different for the collective (government)."
m52nickerson

"Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”
Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots
devilschaplain2
Guest
Re: Cowboy's Call to Action!
« Reply #404 on Apr 24, 2009, 10:27pm »

Quote:
Aha. Here is the rub. Killing innocents (be they civilians or whatever) is morally wrong. That is the only morally wrong part of this act. There, in fact, is nothing more morally wrong about a bombing that kills a bunch of innocent people and the perpetrator than a bombing that kills a bunch of innocent people but not the perpetrator.

Yeah but we weren't talking about the morality of suicide bombing.


Quote:
Then suicide bomber cannot be said to be suicide bombers, either. I'm sure that they'd love to be able to come back and blow up another market square over and over. What suicide bombers do is enter into an action knowing that it will almost certainly cause their own deaths, but not necessarily with that intention.

But sandman wasn't talking about suicide bombers, he was talking about soldiers going into an area in which they might die. And yes, a suicide bomber has the intention of killing himself, hence the word suicide.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
« Page 27 of 30 » Jump to page   Go    [Search This Thread] [Share Topic] [Print]

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Report Abuse | Mobile