Murder is irrelevant. [modified]
-
Why would I? That's hardly to my advantage - they'd just capture me and no matter how many people I killed, the difference I would have made would be insignificant
But why should a bag of chemicals care if it's captured?
Steve
-
But why should a bag of chemicals care if it's captured?
Steve
It shouldn't. But that's irrelevant, just like everything else. I'm not saying that not being captured is preferable, just that it's useless to get yourself captured on purpose. It's equally useless to put effort into evading capture. And none of that matters at all. So why did you even ask that question?
-
It shouldn't. But that's irrelevant, just like everything else. I'm not saying that not being captured is preferable, just that it's useless to get yourself captured on purpose. It's equally useless to put effort into evading capture. And none of that matters at all. So why did you even ask that question?
Your question in irrelevant. Frankly, it's inappropriate for a bag of chemicals to be asking so many questions.
Steve
-
I've seen a lot of people "complain" about 'events' that caused people to die. So what? People died .. ok? It doesn't matter, not even a bit. There are some groups of people who mistakenly think that it does. - People that got hurt financially by those deaths. - Relatives etc. Just because it matters to them, doesn't mean it matters. Also, I don't get why people get so upset about murder especially. Murder is illegal because almost no one wants to die. Not because it is inherently a bad thing when someone is killed. Realize that about 250k people die each day. One (or anything up 250 or so) more or less doesn't make a significant difference. And then there's the overpopulation - murderers are doing us all a (very small) favour by helping a bit. The cause of death is not relevant in any way, except to the current legal system, and to silly people. Is it just because children are indoctrinated to 'care' about deaths? Does human life somehow have "value"? (why should any collection of chemical processes have "value"?) (I have asked this often, just not on CP. I never got satisfying answers.) Discuss. edit: spelling fixed.
modified on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 9:12 AM
Ah, typical Dutch point of view! We have an assumed value system, for better or for worse, that states that life has value and we should try to preserve it (unless it is the enemy, or in our way, in which case wwe can take life with impunity (gulf war for example)). Prior to this assumed values system (which is called christianity) we had paganism. It was more important how you died than whether you died, whcih is an interesting point of view given that you will die anyway, and at least choosing to cash it in for the most outrageous, spectacular, memorable/honourable death possible at least gives you some measure of controll. As for why people get upset, its just social instinct/instilled reaction. Actually kids are very interested in death, and will kill animals quite readilly untill they are indoctrinated against doing so.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Murder is irellevant. Spelling too.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Alright, let's get some basics down. Would you agree that stealing is wrong?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Survival instincts. As in, your life is somehow important to you...
-
harold aptroot wrote:
(I have asked this often, just not on CP. I never got satisfying answers.)
That's because the concept of value is a human invention to qualify the relative utility of things but there is no absolute of "value" that can be assigned to anything. Things can be more valuable than other things depending on the frame of reference. Change the frame of reference and you change the relative valuation of those things. Remove the frame of reference and you've rendered the question of value meaningless. Eg. A glass of water is more valuable than a diamond to someone dying of thirst, less valuable to someone with indoor plumbing, and not valuable at all to a pizza. Accordingly, human life is only valuable when other people agree it's valuable. A better question would be if you're really concerned that human life and by extension the human experience has no intrinsic value, of what possible value is exploring the question in the first place? Might as well just get high and wait until you don't exist anymore.
- F
-
Ah, typical Dutch point of view! We have an assumed value system, for better or for worse, that states that life has value and we should try to preserve it (unless it is the enemy, or in our way, in which case wwe can take life with impunity (gulf war for example)). Prior to this assumed values system (which is called christianity) we had paganism. It was more important how you died than whether you died, whcih is an interesting point of view given that you will die anyway, and at least choosing to cash it in for the most outrageous, spectacular, memorable/honourable death possible at least gives you some measure of controll. As for why people get upset, its just social instinct/instilled reaction. Actually kids are very interested in death, and will kill animals quite readilly untill they are indoctrinated against doing so.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What is typical is to disucss something so taboo so openly. Sex, drugs, death, paedophillia, the Dutch have a frankness of discussion that is refreshing and progressive.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What is typical is to disucss something so taboo so openly. Sex, drugs, death, paedophillia, the Dutch have a frankness of discussion that is refreshing and progressive.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Its an anarchistic principle, which while inoitially sounding stupid, is actually relevant when you look at acts such as the enclosure act. Common land was taken, enclosed, and called the property of the local lord, where upon the peasants had to resort to 'poaching' and sneaky grazing on what was to them still their land.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Its an anarchistic principle, which while inoitially sounding stupid, is actually relevant when you look at acts such as the enclosure act. Common land was taken, enclosed, and called the property of the local lord, where upon the peasants had to resort to 'poaching' and sneaky grazing on what was to them still their land.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Its an anarchistic principle, which while inoitially sounding stupid, is actually relevant when you look at acts such as the enclosure act.
The problem with your argument is that it had to be someones property for it to be stolen to make it someones property. You go back far enough, and no one owned it, and the first owning was not theft. Even 'common land' has been owned. If you have your group's common land, and I try and graze on it, I will quickly learn I have no claim. It was already unavailable to me, prior to the enclosure act, so the act did not make it property, any more or less than defining it as common land. In Europe, feudal laws did not make property or ownership, though they did steal from those who previously owned. In the US, after the European plagues swept through, there was all kinds of property not owned by anyone, because they all died of smallpox. Of course, there was also all kinds of stolen land. But stolen from who?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Its an anarchistic principle, which while inoitially sounding stupid, is actually relevant when you look at acts such as the enclosure act.
The problem with your argument is that it had to be someones property for it to be stolen to make it someones property. You go back far enough, and no one owned it, and the first owning was not theft. Even 'common land' has been owned. If you have your group's common land, and I try and graze on it, I will quickly learn I have no claim. It was already unavailable to me, prior to the enclosure act, so the act did not make it property, any more or less than defining it as common land. In Europe, feudal laws did not make property or ownership, though they did steal from those who previously owned. In the US, after the European plagues swept through, there was all kinds of property not owned by anyone, because they all died of smallpox. Of course, there was also all kinds of stolen land. But stolen from who?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
someones property
Well, it was common property (as is much of France in fact, where the forests and scrub land are owned by the commune, or parish if you like) and so free for all to use. As for a stranger wandering through, and camping on it, or sholoting a rabbit for dinner, I am fairly sure the locals wouldnt get too pissed off. Of course if an entire tribe moved in and started to use the land things might get a bit heated, but that is human nature. What DID happen was the worst. The rich local bigwig just fenced the land off and called it his, and then prosecuted anyone who went on it. ANd that is quite a different story.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription