Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

Does he? please, do show.

+1

[Rolepgeek]

I think his point about Scotland may have been that they might want another referendum now that the main reason they stayed (that I know of) is gone.

The polls don't bear that out I'm afraid.

And Rolepgeek, what did you mean in your last post? I thought Erkki's comments about morality were thoughtful and well-written. What were you implying when you quoted them?

It looked to me like he was trying to mock your point by shifting words around and otherwise shift them to make a parody of an actual position. Perhaps I misinterpreted him.

[Erkki]

I think his point about Scotland may have been that they might want another referendum now that the main reason they stayed (that I know of) is gone.

The polls don't bear that out I'm afraid.

And Rolepgeek, what did you mean in your last post? I thought Erkki's comments about morality were thoughtful and well-written. What were you implying when you quoted them?

It looked to me like he was trying to mock your point by shifting words around and otherwise shift them to make a parody of an actual position. Perhaps I misinterpreted him.

There was no hidden message or point. I did not intend to mock anyone, even if I was mildly annoyed by some of the previous posts when typing it.

I have some more thoughts on the subject but I don't think this to be the right thread for them.

[Rolepgeek]

I think his point about Scotland may have been that they might want another referendum now that the main reason they stayed (that I know of) is gone.

The polls don't bear that out I'm afraid.

And Rolepgeek, what did you mean in your last post? I thought Erkki's comments about morality were thoughtful and well-written. What were you implying when you quoted them?

It looked to me like he was trying to mock your point by shifting words around and otherwise shift them to make a parody of an actual position. Perhaps I misinterpreted him.

Ah, you might have quoted the wrong person by mistake then - SirQuiamus appeared to be doing something like that.

There was, I think, a night between when I saw what was said and when I posted that. So I think maybe I remembered someone did that and sorta skimmed. :/ Sorry Erkki.

Still disagree with you on morals, but that's another matter.

[SirQuiamus]

I don't personally support moral relativism, but I'm totally fine with those who do. You may not believe in universal human rights, but that's just your opinion and none of my business, really. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and all opinions are equally valuable, aren't they? So let's build a safe and tolerant world together, shall we?

[Frumple]

I'm pretty sure you would if they just got both and left you in a sufficiently out of the way ditch. You don't have an option besides tolerate if you're dead~

[Rolepgeek]

How tolerant, though? Like hell I'll tolerate a stolen kidney!

What about half a liver? Those grow back, after all...

[martinuzz]

If you're gonna take shit from me, it'll be with my consent!

Did I just see you volunteer as a poop transplant donor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_microbiota_transplant

[Rolepgeek]

How tolerant, though? Like hell I'll tolerate a stolen kidney!

What about half a liver? Those grow back, after all...

I am NOT having people steal my organs, internal or external. Nor any part of my body. If you're gonna take shit from me, it'll be with my consent!

I automatically give my consent to medical procedures that'll save my life, though. So I'm not consenting to someone stealing my nadgers, but I'll consent to someone removing them to stop some nadger cancer trying to murder me.

I take it you have a lot of love-hate relationships

After all,  they just stole your heart~

[Erkki]

I don't personally support moral relativism, but I'm totally fine with those who do. You may not believe in universal human rights, but that's just your opinion and none of my business, really. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and all opinions are equally valuable, aren't they? So let's build a safe and tolerant world together, shall we?

Moral relativism has IMHO little to do with tolerance(towards, say, other cultures), let alone (the UN-defined) universal human rights. For example, I personally recognize that people share different values, life stance and traditions than I do, but I do not tolerate them all. Not tolerating someones values does not mean that I wouldn't respect these "universal human rights" or whatever they are defined by the society I live within, given the right situation.

Moral relativism just means that objectively there is no right or wrong. This means that objectively, not everyones opinion holds the same value either, but it indeed depends. Your average Chinese citizen has an opinion value approaching zero within his society, but in actual democratic nations with actual freedom of speech(or well, however that is defined) that value is both relatively and absolutely greater. I dont think that the ability of an individual's opinion to effect a society can be ever measured though, and at some point increasing weight of an individual's opinion and freedoms of act must become detrimential to the entire society(such as allowing duels to death).

Are you able to contribute to a discussion?

I automatically give my consent to medical procedures that'll save my life, though. So I'm not consenting to someone stealing my nadgers, but I'll consent to someone removing them to stop some nadger cancer trying to murder me.

A concent for life-saving dedical procedure involving stopping at traffic lights, a group of Brazilian thugs with guns, aimed at preventing a bullet entering your brain? 

[Orange Wizard]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and all opinions are equally valuable, aren't they?

It's my opinion that opinions are not inherently equal. If your opinion is stupid or nonsensical, then it is a worthless opinion and no-one is obligated to respect it.

[Erkki]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and all opinions are equally valuable, aren't they?

It's my opinion that opinions are not inherently equal. If your opinion is stupid or nonsensical, then it is a worthless opinion and no-one is obligated to respect it.

Indeed, but whether or not an opinion is such is a lot of the time relative. Let me know if the following makes any sense.

I find that in a discussion or decision making the parties attempt to overcome and win the "opponent", to gain social an/or other advantages. This may happen at all levels from conversation between two people to parliaments. This is natural, and thus conversations aiming to find the truth or best interpretation of a phenomenon or event is rare. We're still just monkeys yelling at each other and beating chest to rise oneself, offspring, relative or friend to better position within a society. Purpose of a debate, discussion or decision making thus rarely is in finding truth or best course of action for everyone but advantages to individuals or groups they represent, at best compromises and common ground. People are competitive and individualistic, decision making in a society(between entities that have the power to do so) is always more or less dishonest. Dishonest is born out of need of competition between individuals and factions. Fancy words like human rights or freedom or whatever can become just tools in an attempt to gain advantage, real or perceived, way or another to oneself or a group of people while not necessarily adding any value to the entire society.

This phenomenon of inter-society competition at multiple levels and the associated inheritent dishonesty in discussion and debate I believe is one of the reasons why certain organization are very hierarchic, that is, to prevent internal struggles and make decision making as rapid as possible. Societies themselves have structures of hierarchy, but not quite as strong as say, militaries. Common rules(laws), hierarchy and enforcement of those become advantages to a society and every individual within in.

What does this have to do with moral relativism? Well... I think that most morals are just constructs of natural or artificial social hierarchies, rules and customs. We believe that each of our moral is ultimately valuable to us personally, and our society, and they may involve appreciating or not appreciating values differing from our own. A Chinese or North Korean may be perfectly okay in not getting to decide where he or she even lives and thinks its for the greater good of everyone that the entire nation is almost in an Orwellian state of top-to-bottom control. A North Korean's morals and values likely differ vastly from ours, but on personal level at least, the morals have been formed by very similar phenomena.

Sure there could always true, objective best courses of actions to be taken at all times, but humans dont work that way. The man kind isn't a Klackonian hive mind composed of psychic, altruistic individuals. 

[Orange Wizard]

Indeed, but whether or not an opinion is such is a lot of the time relative.

And a lot of things are objective. Science and statistics exist because objectivity is extremely useful. Opinions that defy rationality are less valuable than rational ones.

Let me know if the following makes any sense.

I don't really understand what you're getting at for the most part

[hector13]

He's a dirty Klackonian. Send the Darloks in to deal with them.

[scriver]

Statistics is only objective in the same way a stacked set of cards objectively makes you win.

And the entire point of science as in the scientific method is that it isn't objective, just likely in less or more grade depending on how well trialed it has been.