benjamin619 depreciation thread

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by sleeper

oh FUCK... lds is here. i consciously thought a few times while writing that that it was a good thing that lds was away or whatever because if he was here hed be drawn to this topic and eviscerate and humiliate my thoughts and amateurishness on that question.

um, where is this coming from? my understanding about this (or anything) is patchy at best

[Mayfuck]

Witnessing sleeper's continuing decelnsion into superstition and spirituality is like finding out Santa doesn't exist when you're a kid.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

Im pretty drunk right now. But i believe the problem here is not that i say right and wrong are too cloudy. Its that i say right and wrong do not exist a priori. Benjamin was just making that, rather unrelated point, because i assume people were bandying about right and wrong in righteous terms.

It has nothing much to do with the debate being had at the time, because we all must subscribe to systems of morality to even bother entering the debate.

yeah but im saying they basically do exist a priori, that these things are not just social constructs. but i agree, like i said, that we, for the sake of practicality, have to adopt these systems and that thats right even if objective morality is wrong

and i dont even think this boils down to the question of a righteous god, just god. but i dont like using that word, it has too many unnecessarily loaded and decisive connotations. order and disorder is how i like to look at it. im not sure if this is so prime though, but whatever

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lucky Day Spa

um, where is this coming from? my understanding about this (or anything) is patchy at best

i thought you were like a philosophy major or soemthing. i dont know where im getting this from, but i remember something like that. ive seen you, in any case, kind of... speak softly and carry a big stick, for lack of a better term, and it made me think that you were just waiting for someone to come into your territory so you could feast on their ignorance. listen, im insecure, so what. fuck off, nigger

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Witnessing sleeper's continuing decelnsion into superstition and spirituality is like finding out Santa doesn't exist when you're a kid.

wtf? youre being too dismissive. im not some closet religious nut or something, i hate that stuff as much as you. why are you slandering my anti-religion credentials, you swine? youre constant harping on that squirrel thing was ridiculous enough but now this? fuck you, cracker

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by sleeper

yeah but im saying they basically do exist a priori, that these things are not just social constructs. but i agree, like i said, that we, for the sake of practicality, have to adopt these systems and that thats right even if objective morality is wrong

and i dont even think this boils down to the question of a righteous god, just god. but i dont like using that word, it has too many unnecessarily loaded and decisive connotations. order and disorder is how i like to look at it. im not sure if this is so prime though, but whatever

Id like to hear concisely how human rights exist a priori.

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by sleeper

wtf? youre being too dismissive. im not some closet religious nut or something, i hate that stuff as much as you. why are you slandering my anti-religion credentials, you swine? youre constant harping on that squirrel thing was ridiculous enough but now this? fuck you, cracker

I'm just kidding mostly. You're going to get the same consensus among hardline atheists like LDS and myself anyway. I'm also interested in how you think a prior rights exist. You said they are not social constructs, that is code of ethics was not created by man. If so who created them, how and why?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

Id like to hear concisely how human rights exist a priori.

haha. damn you for qualifying that with "concisely"

just re-read what i wrote when youre not drunk, i guess. thats all i can really recommend.
but just to clarify this now: i wasnt trying to prove that "human rights" exists a priori with that. i was trying to prove that the basis for human rights exists a priori; the idea of "human rights" as we know it is of course constructed, its, like i said, a codified version of something. that something isnt relative and socially constructed, is what ive said. or maybe this is just semantics. i think it is. nevermind. i think were referring to the same thing

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by sleeper

i thought you were like a philosophy major or soemthing. i dont know where im getting this from, but i remember something like that. ive seen you, in any case, kind of... speak softly and carry a big stick, for lack of a better term, and it made me think that you were just waiting for someone to come into your territory so you could feast on their ignorance. listen, im insecure, so what. fuck off, nigger

i'm not (nor have i been) a philosophy major. so yeah, i have an opinion on this, but i don't have any credentials

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

I'm just kidding mostly. You're going to get the same consensus among hardline atheists like LDS and myself anyway. I'm also interested in how you think a prior rights exist. You said they are not social constructs, that is code of ethics was not created by man. If so who created them, how and why?

let me try wording this another way: right and wrong exists, and stuff like human rights and whatever other moral questions are just corollaries of that. its still fair and consistent to make the statement "human rights (or the basis for it) exists a priori" but i can see how thats really misleading and awkward. it makes it seem -- correct me if im wrong -- that this complete list of standards specifically regarding human rights exists a priori.

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

The basis for human rights being, human thought?

human suffering

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by Lucky Day Spa

human suffering

Well said. I was backing out of this because its not really sporting.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lucky Day Spa

i'm not (nor have i been) a philosophy major. so yeah, i have an opinion on this, but i don't have any credentials

graphic design or something? for some reason i have that idea associated with you too, i dont get it.

ok listen why dont you just tell me what you studied or are interested in? tell me about yourself, lds, we never talk

[duovamp]

There is no such thing as "right and wrong" nor is there an afterlife because there is no such thing as "life" and "living" in the first place, and furthermore "freewill" does not exist either. Sorry kids, I had to break it to you. I know, I know, it makes being more sad, but think of it this way, you never had a choice.

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by sleeper

graphic design or something? for some reason i have that idea associated with you too, i dont get it.

ok listen why dont you just tell me what you studied or are interested in? tell me about yourself, lds, we never talk

i work as a web designer. but i studied music

[sleeper]

what the fuck

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by duovamp

There is no such thing as "right and wrong" nor is there an afterlife because there is no such thing as "life" and "living" in the first place, and furthermore "freewill" does not exist either. Sorry kids, I had to break it to you. I know, I know, it makes being more sad, but think of it this way, you never had a choice.

Iv been arguing for nihilism but this is comically stupid.

[Luke de Spa]

guys this is the matrix, remember

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

...its not really sporting.

what does this mean? is this some scottish vernacular or am i just a total fucking moron?

[GlasgowKiss]

Not that the guy doesnt have a couple of points, just that he is comically inarticulate.

And stupid.

[duovamp]

Oh come on, you are just a bunch of tiny little particles collected together in some very extensive reaction. You are no different from my computer except for the fact that you are aware that you occupy space. If you honestly think that eating, crapping, and sleeping make something "alive" then you're simply wrong.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lucky Day Spa

guys this is the matrix, remember

i was going to 1nclude a dig on that too, shit



i heard new zealand has the highest percentage of atheists in the world. is that right? or is that france? i know france is at like 40% or something, which is an incredible, enticing number. canada is at like 17% or something pathetic, its sad

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Oh come on, you are just a bunch of tiny little particles collected together in some very extensive reaction. You are no different from my computer except for the fact that you are aware that you occupy space. If you honestly think that eating, crapping, and sleeping make something "alive" then you're simply wrong.

By our definitions, it makes us alive, but our definitions we are alive or living, to our knowledge there may be an afterlife. Right and wrong do exist, because we each construct them.

ANDDDDDD, anyone with elementary knowledge of quantum physics should know there exists far too much randomness to conclusively believe determinism.

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Oh come on, you are just a bunch of tiny little particles collected together in some very extensive reaction. You are no different from my computer except for the fact that you are aware that you occupy space. If you honestly think that eating, crapping, and sleeping make something "alive" then you're simply wrong.

a computer isn't self-aware and it can't suffer. shut up

[Fathoms (unadored)]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Oh come on, you are just a bunch of tiny little particles collected together in some very extensive reaction. You are no different from my computer except for the fact that you are aware that you occupy space. If you honestly think that eating, crapping, and sleeping make something "alive" then you're simply wrong.

Simply wrong, of course. But complexly right? Definately!

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

ANDDDDDD, anyone with elementary knowledge of quantum physics should know there exists far too much randomness to conclusively believe determinism.

or chaos theory, for that matter

i read a neat little book last year about this sort of thing called "deep simplicity" by john gribbin. definitely worth a look if you're of the layman persuasion

[benjamin619]

Originally Posted by sleeper

let me try wording this another way: right and wrong exists, and stuff like human rights and whatever other moral questions are just corollaries of that. its still fair and consistent to make the statement "human rights (or the basis for it) exists a priori" but i can see how thats really misleading and awkward. it makes it seem -- correct me if im wrong -- that this complete list of standards specifically regarding human rights exists a priori.

right and wrong exist because religion has decided they exist, and governments have decided they exist, and everyone acknowledges a desire for right and wrong to exist and thus, gives power to the notion. but do right and wrong exist as a realism, outside of humanity? unless a god exists who ordains what is right and what is wrong - then no, they dont.

it is not fair to make that statement without putting your failth in God.

[benjamin619]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Oh come on, you are just a bunch of tiny little particles collected together in some very extensive reaction. You are no different from my computer except for the fact that you are aware that you occupy space. If you honestly think that eating, crapping, and sleeping make something "alive" then you're simply wrong.

ah. the Epicurean Clinamen.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by GlasgowKiss

ANDDDDDD, anyone with elementary knowledge of quantum physics should know there exists far too much randomness to conclusively believe determinism.

"There exists far too much randomness" yet you say I am the inarticulate one? Allow me to correct you by simply quoting a physicist. "God does not roll the dice" Aaaaaaand bam. At least you made it this far before proving you know nothing about quantum physics. Why is it that you always know precisely how a six-year-old will act when you do something? How can it be that humans, with "choices" of "free will" could ever be so likely do to something in a certain way? My best friend's father, a nuclear theoretical astro-physicist, said that if you had 100% knowledge about every single thing in the entire universe, EVERYTHING, then how could you NOT be able to know the outcome of everything to happen in the future? If you knew everything in the universe then you could predict, with absolute accuracy too, how everybody will act and how everything will happen. If you are suggesting that there is no such thing as determinism then you abandon causality, meaning you have no clue how the universe works.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Lucky Day Spa

or chaos theory, for that matter

i read a neat little book last year about this sort of thing called "deep simplicity" by john gribbin. definitely worth a look if you're of the layman persuasion

Sorry, "Chaos Theory" isn't what you think, at all. What exactly is chaos? The name "chaos theory" comes from the fact that the systems that the theory describes are apparently disordered, but chaos theory is really about finding the underlying order in apparently random data.