Print

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

[Nadaka]

World of warcraft? Let me guess, it is violent because it has the word war in its name? The rest are just fairly mild shooters. Why isn't duke nuken forever on that list?

[DJ]

It's a good plan, if the only "training game" left is TF2, all the loonies will kill themselves with rocket jumping before they can do any real damage.

[Phmcw]

Really? Didn't realise the ground rules of civilised societies were set in stone...

It's pure common sense! AAAAAAAA! Which one do you call a civilized society; situation A where we go around killing and torturing each other freely or situation B where we don't? Which one makes a better society?

Use your friggin' brains.

Common sense my hairy arse.

Common sense would dictate that we remove those undesirable elements from society, permanently.
Common sense also dictates that we shouldn't allow the drigs and drags of the 'less civilised' nations into our society, especially those that have absolutely no intention of assimilating to our culture.


Where as we now look back at the Romans and think of them as well dress blood thirsty brutes, our decedents will probably look back at us and think of us as being quite silly for allowing repeat offenders back onto the streets to rob, rape and murder again, or for allowing large swathes of our towns and cities to be turned into third world ghettos.

That the exact came of crap that made utilitarian into libertarian. That's common sense enough, but that's poor thinking as well.

Let's beggin : we may all be rapist, and under certain circumstance, a lot more of us would be. Let's say a clash of civilization, with a big war between western and eastern world, most of us conscript and ... hop, instantly at least one of ten of us will rape someone (number coming right out of my ass but that's the point that is important, and you can check it up by reading any book on rape in warfare).

And just as well, most of us, that currently would cower under any kind of fire would become suddenly courageous if you are put through five year of military training and a few battle.

Human can be changed, and human can be programmed. And we have this annoying tendency to fight and kill that should be culled.
We have also this tendency to make few children in a rich society, and to seek a better world when we live in a crapsack one.

With all that you just know that you must pay a special attention to children of migrant and of poor people.
You don't so you have high crime in the poor area. Period.

[EmperorNuthulu]

It's a good plan, if the only "training game" left is TF2, all the loonies will kill themselves with rocket jumping before they can do any real damage.

 Clearly Valve has bought Norway, soon you'll see only hat stores there.

[Hiiri]

Common sense my hairy arse.

Common sense would dictate that we remove those undesirable elements from society, permanently.

Okay.. I don't like what you're saying or doing to this world. Does that give me the right to murder you? "To permanently remove you from this society" as a harmful agent?

No.

You'll have to define happy, killing and torture, because otherwise the list gets longer than I care to write it.


Also, comparing mathematics to morals is rather silly, people have and still do, utterly believed they did the right thing when sacrificing to the gods, both human, animal and material sacrifices.

People used to do blood vengeance, not because they liked it, thought it was awesome or any such silly, they did it because they thought it was the only right thing to do.

It's easy to sit at the bottom of society with a full belly and tell what is moral and what isn't, but your own mind holds no definite truth in such a matter.

Ask Anders if he thinks he is moral and civilized. Who are you to say he isn't? It's not about murdering right now, your are claiming monopole on civilization and it's rather silly.

To be civilized, is to act according to the ruling classes ideal. Again, look through history all the way back to the meaning of the word barbarian.

It's not even close to silly, if our mutual aim is to maximize human happiness (notice "if"). Actions have consequences; how can we minimize the negative consequences and maximize positive consequences? It's pure logical thinking and can be applied to moral issues.

Sacrificing to gods or ABB thinking he's a hero of the mankind has nothing to do with rationality or logic. People thinking that something is a good thing is only subjective and has nothing to do with the objective reality.

I don't agree with your definition of "civilized."

[DJ]

Civilized behaviour = behaviour that conforms to the norms and traditions of the culture of the observer
Less civilized culture/more civilized culture = culture with less overlap/more overlap with that of the observer's culture

[ed boy]

Really? Didn't realise the ground rules of civilised societies were set in stone...

It's pure common sense! AAAAAAAA! Which one do you call a civilized society; situation A where we go around killing and torturing each other freely or situation B where we don't? Which one makes a better society?

Well, the proposal on question did not involve torturing people freely. Torturing people in rare and extreme cases is a different matter.

Also, "common sense" is NOT a valid logical argument.

Morals and civilized behavior are not decided by the government. It's pure mathematics. Murder + murder = two murders. Murder + no murder = Murder. No murder + no murder = No murder. How we'll reach such society is a question mark, but one thing's for sure, NOT BY MURDERING AND TORTURING! There is nothing philosophical about this.

To adress the problem mathematically, as you seem to be doing, what you have here is a greedy algorithm. It'll find the local minimum number of murders, but not the global. One of the main arguments for capital punishment and these things is that they are better at finding the global minimum. In other words, they cause more deaths in the short term but less in the long term.

Whether or not they are effective is a different argument entirely.

Common sense my hairy arse.

Common sense would dictate that we remove those undesirable elements from society, permanently.

Okay.. I don't like what you're saying or doing to this world. Does that give me the right to murder you? "To permanently remove you from this society" as a harmful agent?

You need to abandon this idea of a univeral 'right'. They're a construct of our society. Although in our current society, you would not have such a right, in an alternative society you might.

Sacrificing to gods or ABB thinking he's a hero of the mankind has nothing to do with rationality or logic. People thinking that something is a good thing is only subjective and has nothing to do with the objective reality.

I don't agree with your definition of "civilized."

Don't say that just because something is subjective it has nothing to do with rationality of logic. One can create different logical systems based on subjective beliefs which will work perfectly well.

For example, there are multiple definitions of the natural numbers. You could take one definition, and I could take another. Each of those systems would be perfectly valid. We could create multiple statements that hold in both systems, or statements that hold in one but not the other, or statements that hold in neither. Just because a certain statement holds in my theory but not yours, it doesn't mean that one of them is irrational.

[Glowcat]

It's pure mathematics. Murder + murder = two murders. Murder + no murder = Murder. No murder + no murder = No murder.

This is rather dishonest. You might as well say 1 Apple + 1 Orange = 2 Apples. Both might be fruit, but don't confuse one for the other.

This is rather like people who complain about others being bigoted towards bigots, it completely misses the point behind why the initial bigotry (in the form of sexism/racism) was bad and constructs its argument from semantics instead of addressing the reality.

Though I guess since you've ignored this point several times it's worthless to bring it up again.

[GlyphGryph]

To adress the problem mathematically, as you seem to be doing, what you have here is a greedy algorithm. It'll find the local minimum number of murders, but not the global. One of the main arguments for capital punishment and these things is that they are better at finding the global minimum. In other words, they cause more deaths in the short term but less in the long term.

See now, if you're going to make this sort of statement, you need to provide some evidence. Everything I've seen seems to indicate this is not actually true.

[ed boy]

To adress the problem mathematically, as you seem to be doing, what you have here is a greedy algorithm. It'll find the local minimum number of murders, but not the global. One of the main arguments for capital punishment and these things is that they are better at finding the global minimum. In other words, they cause more deaths in the short term but less in the long term.

See now, if you're going to make this sort of statement, you need to provide some evidence. Everything I've seen seems to indicate this is not actually true.

By not murdering whenever you have the choice, you are finding the local minimum number of muders in each situation. This is, by definition, a greedy algorithm. It doesn't mean that it's a bad algorithm, or that it is guaranteed to not achieve the global minimum, it's just a greedy algorithm.

Whenever I have been in a discussion about capital punishment, one of the biggest points that is brought up is that is acts as much as a disincentive as a punishment. That is, the argument is that although capital punishment for large crimes does not find the local minimum, it finds the global minimum.

Whether or not the argument for capital punishment holds in real life is a completely different argument, as I said in the previous post.

[zombat]

Common sense my hairy arse.

Common sense would dictate that we remove those undesirable elements from society, permanently.

Okay.. I don't like what you're saying or doing to this world. Does that give me the right to murder you? "To permanently remove you from this society" as a harmful agent?

No.

I don't think the West is quite orwellian enough for thought crimes to be a capital crime just yet...

Let me ask you a question:
It's the middle of the night, a huge hulking mound of manflesh kicks down the door.
He proudly proclaims that he's going to stab you in the eye and then rape your wife and kids.
Next to you is a gun.

Do you:
A. Shoot the fucker in the head
B. Give him a stern talking to about the rights and wrongs of his actions
C. "Take what you wish.  I can't stop you."

[DJ]

D) Piss myself.

[Aqizzar]

E) Reach for the gun, and get stabbed because he's already armed and you're in a panic.

What does all this have to do with Oslo, anyway?

[Glowcat]

I don't think the West is quite orwellian enough for thought crimes to be a capital crime just yet...

Let me ask you a question:
It's the middle of the night, a huge hulking mound of manflesh kicks down the door.
He proudly proclaims that he's going to stab you in the eye and then rape your wife and kids.
Next to you is a gun.

Do you:
A. Shoot the fucker in the head
B. Give him a stern talking to about the rights and wrongs of his actions
C. "Take what you wish.  I can't stop you."

Hiiri is on record as making an exception for self-defense. Find another example.

[ed boy]

I don't think the West is quite orwellian enough for thought crimes to be a capital crime just yet...

Let me ask you a question:
It's the middle of the night, a huge hulking mound of manflesh kicks down the door.
He proudly proclaims that he's going to stab you in the eye and then rape your wife and kids.
Next to you is a gun.

Do you:
A. Shoot the fucker in the head
B. Give him a stern talking to about the rights and wrongs of his actions
C. "Take what you wish.  I can't stop you."

Hiiri is on record as making an exception for self-defense. Find another example.

You are a man in norway a few days ago with a big rifle. Anders Breivik has just killed a few people and is clearly about to kill more. You can shoot him with your rifle, or do nothing.