Tuesday, May 18, 1999 9:42 PM psypher wrote:
>...well, why should anyone abide by the rules and structure of your
>hypothetical socity then? How do we decide which course of action is
>better or worse than any other course of action? Why does a society
>need rules and structure?
> etc., etc., etc.
I am beginning to get the feeling that you, consciously or unconsciously, misunderstand with a degree of intent. You are taking pieces of what I say, twisting them to your own ends, and creating a good argument in the process. While I am sure that this is an "effective" debate technique, it is not particularly honest. I don't consider that "discussion", and I am not certain of the purpose.
The society I live in DOES have rules and laws. I have never, in any discussion, advocated a complete abolishment of all laws. Even if I did believe in a god or gods, I would not be comfortable with "organized religion". I don't need and am not looking for ADDITIONAL structure and constraint. Your conclusion that this indicates support for the acts of individuals like Hitler and Dahmer, is pure sensationalistic bull-shit.
So let me know when you want to have a discussion and when you want to fight. I have a great deal of respect for both your intelligence and your education. I do not however, have a great deal of anger and aggression that I wish to express through argument.
Roni
-----Original Message-----
From: psypher <overload@fastmail.ca>
To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
Date:
Subject: Re: virus: maxims and ground rules and suppositions
>> Ahh psypher, where do I begin?! Well first, I must say that you are
>> more fun to arg. . . uh, . . . have an intelligent discussion with,
>> than anyone I've encountered in quite some time!
>
>...that's more or less the point.
>
>> Next, you may have taken my point here just a bit out of context. I
>> do believe that a society needs rules and structure. 'matter of
>> fact, in some ways I can be quite conservative. I just can't figure
>> out why the CoV needs a "moral code" by which to make "value
>> judgments".
>
>...well, why should anyone abide by the rules and structure of your
>hypothetical socity then? How do we decide which course of action is
>better or worse than any other course of action? Why does a society
>need rules and structure?
>
>> The U.S. is probably the most puritanical Western society on the
>> planet. I believe the CoV is attempting to view and address the
>> world in a less restrictive frame-work.
>
>...I think puritanism and fundamentalism are both rampant here.
>
>> Aren't we all adults here (I include amir, age 14, in this
>> "judgement" because to my way of thinking, he conducts himself in a
>> manner pretty much on a par with the rest of us)?
>
>...well, presumably. But what do you mean by "adult"?
>
>
>> Well more to the point, why should you kill me?? To win an
>argument?
>
>...why not? Perhaps because I would find the act of killing you
>pleasurable. [some people do] Perhaps the worldview I hold values the
>world without your sort of person in it more than the world with your
>sort of person in it. Perhaps because I judge the state of affairs
>brought about by your death to be superior [on some identified,
>measured, phenomenological basis] than the present state of affairs.
>
>What I am advocating is a form
>> of "self governing".
>
>...then what role does your consciousness play? What significance do
>the choices you make have?
>
> I am not against maxims. I am not against a set
>> of rules which define a social structure as a whole. What I am
>> against is a bunch of rules for the sake of rules.
>
>...no argument there.
>
> And I am even
>> more against pretty much anything which is going to encourage
>further
>> "judgements".
>
>...every assertion you make about value is a judgement. You act to
>promote those things you judge "good" and to discourage those things
>which you judge "bad". On what basis do you make these decisions?
>...if you do not make these decisions, how is it that you have got to
>a position of adulthood without coming to any conclusions at all
>about value?
>
> Personal opinions, yes. "Shoulds", no.
>
>...Hitler had an opinion [to grab the most blatant example]. Jeffery
>Dahmer had an opinion. We *value* the opinions of these people less
>than the opinions of other people. Obviously there is some intent to
>make judgements here. On what is it based?
>
>-psypher
>______________________________________________________________________
> http://fastmail.ca Fastmail's Free web based email for Canadians