an extremely sarcastic post of half WP users

Page 1 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

17 Jan 2008, 1:11 pm

Oh, how do I know this is a computer I am typing on? How do I know this computer isn't an illusion? How do I know other peoples' computers aren't illusions? So how do I know it's wrong for me to send them viruses? Who says child molestation is wrong? Who says slavery and sweat shops is wrong, I don't know they even really exist as people, or that they can really feel pain, after all. They could just be an illusion. How do I know morality isn't forcing others to join my cult? Who is to say that it's wrong to beat your wife but ok for gays to have sex? Who is to say that Michael Vick was wrong for torturing animals, after all seeing as I am white and I have no idea what it's like to be black, who'se to say his actions weren't right JUST BECAUSE he was black? Who'se to say he shouldn't be let go? Is punishing him "racist"? And who is to assume that his entire identity does not lie in his skin color, and that ethnics are individual human beings as opposed to a clone of everyone who shares their skin color? Who'se to say that it's hypocritical to endorse one form of discrimination (disability who aren't accepted as equals, and gays/bi's who are halfway to acceptance but not fully) and condemn another (race or gender)(note this sentence was more a rant on general society than WP)? And who says reverse discrimination is just as bad as regular discrimination?



Last edited by snake321 on 17 Jan 2008, 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 Jan 2008, 1:13 pm

:lol: :)

Yes, i think public/state/national schooling does its job very well, whatever many people may think. :( It is doing it almost perfectly for industry, commerce, the highest paid, the top dogs, the powerful and privileged. The status quo. It is superlatively good at creating lifelong compulsive consumers, infantilising the young and adults, producing stupidity and dependency. At stopping thought, DEAD. I didn't start thinking again until i was 26. Suddenly a book i read switched it on again; i literally felt the change; as if i had gained 10/20 points of IQ in a day. Wow, it was like rediscovering tools, a big box of tools, that had been locked away since infancy.

8)



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

17 Jan 2008, 1:26 pm

Well this stupid little game theyr playing is really not helping us out as aspies, it will further the stigma and stereotype that we've got no empathy. Actually people like them almost make me ashamed of being an aspie. Of coarse I'm sure some of them (not all of them) are NTs who are starved for attention, AS is becoming the new ADHD.
But your right though oiuon (if I spelled your name right), people dig this because it's a front for their ignorance, not only that but it's passed off as being "open minded". Their ignorance and group think mentality and selfishness will eventually turn on them when they wake up with tanks and helicopters eventually patrolling their streets and theyr squandering in poverty and oppression. Because this is how rome fell into tyranny.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 Jan 2008, 1:30 pm

snake321 wrote:
Well this stupid little game they're playing is really not helping us out as aspies, it will further the stigma and stereotype that we've got no empathy. Actually people like them almost make me ashamed of being an aspie. Of coarse I'm sure some of them (not all of them) are NTs who are starved for attention, AS is becoming the new ADHD. People dig this because it's a front for their ignorance, not only that but it's passed off as being "open minded".

um, don't know who "them" is. Sorry. I think i must have missed a thread! ( more and more the case)
Open mindedness as front for indifference/ignorance/apathy, that's widespread. Where did i read that recently? Now that's going to bug me.

8)



Last edited by ouinon on 17 Jan 2008, 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

17 Jan 2008, 1:43 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Great post. I for one have had quite enough of this tendency for people nowadays to engage in odd, pseudo-philosophical rants about moral relativism.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

17 Jan 2008, 1:54 pm

In a philosophy forum, there are bound to be posts about the nature of reality and sometimes people will question if reality is real. The same thing goes on in classrooms and dorms and bars around the world. Personally, I think that some people occasionally get long-winded and airy-fairy. But there are some good discussions.

Likewise, in a political forum, there are bound to be discussions on Michael Vicks, race and racism, gays, political candidates and the soup de jour. This place doesn't really seem that different from the rest of the internet when it comes to that.

I think you are exaggerating some of the positions, and using the exaggeration (not the reality) to justify your dissatisfaction. For example, did anyone here even say that Michael Vicks was right in torturing dogs? Did anyone say that he shouldn't be judged exactly the same as anyone else who forces dogs to fight, or who kills dogs? I don't think any one did, and if they did, it wasn't a majority opinion.

Isn't the real problem you have that people here don't think exactly like you?



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

17 Jan 2008, 2:14 pm

:lol: I can laugh at myself.

But you're still wrong. ;)
I leave these things for actions. My thoughts need no such boundaries.

Besides, you're confusing solipsism with some elementary hole-poking.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

17 Jan 2008, 3:20 pm

monty wrote:
In a philosophy forum, there are bound to be posts about the nature of reality and sometimes people will question if reality is real. The same thing goes on in classrooms and dorms and bars around the world. Personally, I think that some people occasionally get long-winded and airy-fairy. But there are some good discussions.

Likewise, in a political forum, there are bound to be discussions on Michael Vicks, race and racism, gays, political candidates and the soup de jour. This place doesn't really seem that different from the rest of the internet when it comes to that.

I think you are exaggerating some of the positions, and using the exaggeration (not the reality) to justify your dissatisfaction. For example, did anyone here even say that Michael Vicks was right in torturing dogs? Did anyone say that he shouldn't be judged exactly the same as anyone else who forces dogs to fight, or who kills dogs? I don't think any one did, and if they did, it wasn't a majority opinion.

Isn't the real problem you have that people here don't think exactly like you?


A bunch of black people in my local area made a huge protest calling the incrimination of michael vick "racist", this was all over our local news for about a week or two.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

17 Jan 2008, 3:21 pm

twoshots wrote:
:lol: I can laugh at myself.

But you're still wrong. ;)
I leave these things for actions. My thoughts need no such boundaries.

Besides, you're confusing solipsism with some elementary hole-poking.


Ok, if I'm wrong, then what gives you the right to victimize innocent people or innocent sentient creatures? I see nothing that could rationalize barbarism as such.....
People can rationalize anything, slavery, halucaust, that doesn't mean it's right. Such people who adhere to what I guess you'd call moral relativism, more than anything theyr just professional spin doctors. So are far right and left people actually.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

17 Jan 2008, 3:46 pm

snake321 wrote:
A bunch of black people in my local area made a huge protest calling the incrimination of michael vick "racist", this was all over our local news for about a week or two.


I don't agree with their conclusions - haven't seen any evidence that he was targeted because of his race.

And that is a few people in your local community - not WP.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

17 Jan 2008, 4:41 pm

snake321 wrote:
Ok, if I'm wrong, then what gives you the right to victimize innocent people or innocent sentient creatures? I see nothing that could rationalize barbarism as such.....

I do not believe I have ever proposed such a thing.

Quote:
People can rationalize anything, slavery, halucaust, that doesn't mean it's right. Such people who adhere to what I guess you'd call moral relativism, more than anything theyr just professional spin doctors. So are far right and left people actually.


But if people can rationalize anything, and you cannot tell them that their rationalizations are invalid in some way, does this not point to a failure of rationality in the moral enterprise?

Perhaps some people are simply bad. Not stupid. What would be so wrong in a downward imposition of our ego onto the world in order to make it a better place simply because we wish it to be thus?

I think I get along rather poorly with secularists because I am too moral. There is more to life than practicality and utility, and I do not wish the moral to be confused with simple expedience. Such would be a debasement of the notion :?


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Jan 2008, 4:42 pm

snake321 wrote:
Ok, if I'm wrong, then what gives you the right to victimize innocent people or innocent sentient creatures? I see nothing that could rationalize barbarism as such.....

Who says that there needs to be a right to do or not do anything? Couldn't ability be ability and "right" be denounced as a religious term or a matter of faith?
Quote:
People can rationalize anything, slavery, halucaust, that doesn't mean it's right. Such people who adhere to what I guess you'd call moral relativism, more than anything theyr just professional spin doctors. So are far right and left people actually.

Yes, they can rationalize anything, but the real question is how do we determine right and not right. Your intuition and that alone? How is your intuition a special source of validity? People have intuited slavery, holocausts and things of that nature as well, and to say that your intuition is inherently better than there is to invoke an unprovable claim.



Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 17 Jan 2008, 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

17 Jan 2008, 4:43 pm

Sarcasm, shmarcasm, snarcasm? topic

I myself have always had a hard time coming to grips with moral relativism. I realize not everyone, every culture or every society has the same personal standards as I do. All of us may not agree on every type of thinking and conduct.

Having said this, there are laws (not always effective, and always need revising) in place that prescribe a minimum of rules that we must follow in order to prevent society from collapsing into complete anarchy. In a democratic society we have the priviledge of changing or modifying laws (I know this takes time) and protesting and complaining and lobbying for this and that. Democracy is a difficult kind of government to make work, is always evolving, and whether we agree or not with all the nuances and various parties' platforms, this is better than living in a dictatorship. (Of course, we have the right to label our governments dictatorships without being thrown in jail arbitrarily.) Those who condemned as rascist the charges and judgement against Michael Vicks, I believe, came to the wrong conclusions, but they had the right to stage a protest without violence. This, for better or for worse, is how democracy operates.

I probably have not said anything that you have not heard before, but sometimes things need repeating. Thank you for posting such interesting and thought provoking sarcasm. :)


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Jan 2008, 4:45 pm

sartresue wrote:
I myself have always had a hard time coming to grips with moral relativism. I realize not everyone, every culture or every society has the same personal standards as I do. All of us may not agree on every type of thinking and conduct.

Well, right, I tend to disagree with the concept of moral relativism because to me every system must either have or reject truth. Moral relativism tries to do both.



vandire
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 201

17 Jan 2008, 4:52 pm

snake321 wrote:
Oh, how do I know this is a computer I am typing on? How do I know this computer isn't an illusion? How do I know other peoples' computers aren't illusions? So how do I know it's wrong for me to send them viruses? Who says child molestation is wrong? Who says slavery and sweat shops is wrong, I don't know they even really exist as people, or that they can really feel pain, after all. They could just be an illusion. How do I know morality isn't forcing others to join my cult? Who is to say that it's wrong to beat your wife but ok for gays to have sex? Who is to say that Michael Vick was wrong for torturing animals, after all seeing as I am white and I have no idea what it's like to be black, who'se to say his actions weren't right JUST BECAUSE he was black? Who'se to say he shouldn't be let go? Is punishing him "racist"? And who is to assume that his entire identity does not lie in his skin color, and that ethnics are individual human beings as opposed to a clone of everyone who shares their skin color? Who'se to say that it's hypocritical to endorse one form of discrimination (disability who aren't accepted as equals, and gays/bi's who are halfway to acceptance but not fully) and condemn another (race or gender)(note this sentence was more a rant on general society than WP)? And who says reverse discrimination is just as bad as regular discrimination?


I was going to post a possibly scathing, or alternately praising reply, but then I realised I wasn't sure if you have written this or not. So instead I'm just going to possibly in some potential interpretations talk about books.

I may or may not like the potential objects that I might possibly percieve as being what I may consider to potentialy be commonly known as books.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

17 Jan 2008, 5:03 pm

sartresue wrote:
Having said this, there are laws (not always effective, and always need revising) in place that prescribe a minimum of rules that we must follow in order to prevent society from collapsing into complete anarchy.


But the interesting question is by what means did the whole acquire the right to punish the few in order that they might enjoy their society? Is not society built on the backs of the deviants, so to speak? Sacrificing this few for the masses?

It is often taken for granted that we should behave in a way that will make society profitable, and then prosecute those who do not conform to this code. This "right" of the people is rationalized in many and myriad ways, each system as much of an arbitrary construct as the last.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, right, I tend to disagree with the concept of moral relativism because to me every system must either have or reject truth. Moral relativism tries to do both.


Hmm. I've always been confused by this. Can moral relativists really keep themselves separate from moral skeptics without encountering inconsistency? It is after all quite easy to say "X and ~X are right" provided we simply define "right" as a certain class of behaviors which is valued by at least one society. No subjective value stance needs to be taken in this case.


_________________
* here for the nachos.