Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[Zefelius]

simple utilitarian argument

if it is unfortunate - and if there is lets say a certain chance of a negitive outcome as a result (eg a nuclear war) that causes loss of life, what is the net expected loss of life due to iran getting nukes. And if we can determine this to be - maybe 10,000 lives or 1,000,000 lives how much effort should we put into stopping it?

Nice to see you back Scottie!!

I have a feeling that ShowTek and Hydro will counter that there is less of a chance of lost lives because of something like MAD: they won't attack us and vice versa since that is in no one's best interest. There's something to that logic, as it seemed to work during the Cold War. But personally I can't help but think that the odds will increase for some kind of attack when more countries have access to these weapons. At some point there are just too many variables and opportunities. At least now there are only a few countries which possess these WMDs, thus reducing the odds. It may be hypocritical, but it can still be argued that pragmatically it's in our interest to keep nukes within a limited circle. It's not fair, of course, but it's unrealistic to think that the nuclear club will give up its advantage. We can't rationally expect, then, that other countries won't try to join the club; but that doesn't prevent us from pragmatically resisting this.

[HydroDragon]

To be clear, I don't actually want anybody to have nuclear weapons, just pointing out why it wouldn't be the end of the world if Iran got nukes. Iran getting a nuke or two is a glass of water in the ocean compared to all the nukes out there. I mean, North Korea has nukes for god's sake.

[ITZ DENI3D]

To be clear, I don't actually want anybody to have nuclear weapons, just pointing out why it wouldn't be the end of the world if Iran got nukes. Iran getting a nuke or two is a glass of water in the ocean compared to all the nukes out there. I mean, North Korea has nukes for god's sake.

I think North Korea wants to use them just as much as Iran does, they're just not being stupid about it. Having two North Korea's doesn't really sound like a good idea to me... Actually it could be the end of the world if they used them. Glass of water in the ocean? Really? Its not a big deal if they don't use them, but as Zef said the more countries that get them, the higher the percentages of them getting used. Also they are one of the most out of control governments in that region. I just know nothing good can come out of it, but a whole lot of bad can...

[ShowtekGER]

In response you could probably say, as a cultural relativist, that there is no right or wrong and thus you don't believe that cultural imperialism is wrong either. But it seems that once you judge any society in somewhat moral terms, you will then have the basis for doing so in reference to other societies---lest you undermine evaluative judgement altogether.

as a cultural relativist you can still judge all you want as long as you keep in mind that all such judgments, including your own, are relative.

we should be careful to not debase cultural relativism to the doctrine of value judgments that posit that all cultures are equal and therefore deserve equal treatment. i think a more nuanced version of cultural relativism is that cultural truths (like any other truths) are dependent on many variables, socially constructed, and therefore not absolute. thus, if people believe in witch hunting, demons, and torture, so be it. it has been true for them. the same goes to people that believe in science and logic. surely, this truth might change someday. so if we make our relative judgments we should keep this in mind.

[ShowtekGER]

simple utilitarian argument

if it is unfortunate - and if there is lets say a certain chance of a negitive outcome as a result (eg a nuclear war) that causes loss of life, what is the net expected loss of life due to iran getting nukes. And if we can determine this to be - maybe 10,000 lives or 1,000,000 lives how much effort should we put into stopping it?

firstly, we can't. secondly, if we could do you think we would reach those numbers? it's also a matter of who dies. do 10 million non-western casualties make for a better utilitarian argument than 5 million western and 5 million non-western ones?

i'm not sure whether your and zef's arguments actually include the iranians. they and others in the region already live unacceptable lives from their own perspective. i'm not sure whether they would engage in a discussion of whether westerners live worse lives after iran gets a nuke or not.

in my opinion, the ultimate utilitarian argument would be to abolish all national borders and deactivate all WMDs. oh, the happiness everywhere!

[ITZ DENI3D]

in my opinion, the ultimate utilitarian argument would be to abolish all national borders and deactivate all WMDs. oh, the happiness everywhere!

LMFAO good luck with that, you can't change human nature...

[ScottieX]

To be clear, I don't actually want anybody to have nuclear weapons, just pointing out why it wouldn't be the end of the world if Iran got nukes. Iran getting a nuke or two is a glass of water in the ocean compared to all the nukes out there. I mean, North Korea has nukes for god's sake.

well there is a balance then. we dont just nuke iran because they might be thinking about getting nukes, but on the other hand we dont just sit quietly selling them the computers and other resources required. Some sort of balance in the middle that might involve sanctions and so forth if those policies are effective.

firstly, we can't.

yeah well that is a important pont if it is true (which it may be). but I think we need to make sure we dont confuse the two and start using the wrong arguments. Ie it isnt valid debate methodology to sue a valid point against a argument as a disproof of a different argument.

secondly, if we could do you think we would reach those numbers? it's also a matter of who dies. do 10 million non-western casualties make for a better utilitarian argument than 5 million western and 5 million non-western ones?

i'm not sure whether your and zef's arguments actually include the iranians. they and others in the region already live unacceptable lives from their own perspective. i'm not sure whether they would engage in a discussion of whether westerners live worse lives after iran gets a nuke or not.

they certainly do, i dont know why you would make such a negitive assumption about us..

In fact I explicitly mentioned that I think iranians are the big loosers from iran having nukes especially if they have to use them and FWIW i dont think that iran is a very big threat to the west and certainly not to NZ. Israel and the arab world... somewhat more so.

[SVPM]

I had a big post answering all the questionning of this thread, from quantum physics, to economy, to politics and philosophy but just as I posted it the forum went on maintenance.

I can't do it again, it was a once-in-a-lifetime post.

[Zefelius]

I had a big post answering all the questionning of this thread, from quantum physics, to economy, to politics and philosophy but just as I posted it the forum went on maintenance.

I can't do it again, it was a once-in-a-lifetime post.

Hahahahhahaaahaha! That was pretty funny...

[ScottieX]

I had a big post answering all the questionning of this thread, from quantum physics, to economy, to politics and philosophy but just as I posted it the forum went on maintenance.

I can't do it again, it was a once-in-a-lifetime post.

OK I will therefore surrender all the points that you would have mentioned

[ScottieX]

If Iran gets nukes and if they don't control them and if it gets in the hands of terrorists - I wonder if Westerners are really likely to be the ones that get killed...

Simply - if you look at the list of terrorist attacks around the world it is completely dominated by local groups killing people locally, not foreign groups in a Sept 11 style attack. the terrorists will also need to get the nuke out of Iran and to another continent - that implies they have no acceptable targets in the country... and these crazies tend to have acceptable targets all over the place. I'm imagining a suitcase nuke used in a very iraq religious war style situation.

[ITZ DENI3D]

If Iran gets nukes and if they don't control them and if it gets in the hands of terrorists - I wonder if Westerners are really likely to be the ones that get killed...

Simply - if you look at the list of terrorist attacks around the world it is completely dominated by local groups killing people locally, not foreign groups in a Sept 11 style attack. the terrorists will also need to get the nuke out of Iran and to another continent - that implies they have no acceptable targets in the country... and these crazies tend to have acceptable targets all over the place. I'm imagining a suitcase nuke used in a very iraq religious war style situation.

I doubt they would be able to use it on the U.S., if they were smart they would nuke the oil depots worth trillions of dollars. I think that would do more damage in the long run than nuking a couple cities to be honest... Actually I take that back, they really wouldn't need a nuke for that

[Zefelius]

as a cultural relativist you can still judge all you want as long as you keep in mind that all such judgments, including your own, are relative.

we should be careful to not debase cultural relativism to the doctrine of value judgments that posit that all cultures are equal and therefore deserve equal treatment. i think a more nuanced version of cultural relativism is that cultural truths (like any other truths) are dependent on many variables, socially constructed, and therefore not absolute. thus, if people believe in witch hunting, demons, and torture, so be it. it has been true for them. the same goes to people that believe in science and logic. surely, this truth might change someday. so if we make our relative judgments we should keep this in mind.

I don't see how that makes sense. What does it mean to say that I can judge all I want as long as I know my judgement is relative? By saying it is relative, does that imply that it really doesn't count for anything? Then it's not a real judgement, right? Does it count for something true and real? Then it's no longer relative. Perhaps you mean that it only counts for something meaningful for yourself. So this way you get your cake and eat it too: it counts, but not in a transcultural sense. But that doesn't make sense either, because if it only counts for yourself then once again you're not really making a judgement about the foreign culture at all but only revealing your personal mood or emotion. An evaluative judgement about some external 'x' by definition implies that you are saying something meaningful about 'x', but in your case you are only giving vent to your own internal states. Indeed, even that is going too far and granting you too much, since genuine relativity cannot describe anthing outside of its own linguistic terms---and insofar as your own internal states are equally external to the spoken or written word as the states and actions of others, then it seems to follow that your words apply to neither yourself nor to others. Ultimately, then, it is impossible for me or anyone else to understand what you are talking about.

[Zefelius]

I was a little surprised the media and the liberals made an issue out of Romney's highschool bullying of fellow students. Some expressed outrage that he called others names and even cut the hair of one student whom he thought was a bit too eccentric and effeminate. The liberals said he crossed the line. It's hard for me to be surprised or outraged, personally. First, I thought most kids suffered much worse than getting some of their hair cut or being called names. So I'm not surprised. And as far as moral outrage goes, I would hope that most kids undergo some form of hazing rituals before entering adult society. If they can't withstand the bullying of idiots in highschool, then they're unlikely to be strong enough to defend the kind of society that is worth defending, the kind which understands the inherent conflict of life. There should be limits of course, but calling others names and cutting their hair is hardly an outrage. It seems more like typical teenager antagonism.

[ScottieX]

First, I thought most kids suffered much worse than getting some of their hair cut or being called names. So I'm not surprised.

I cant remember anythign that bad for anyone at my school while i was there. It depresses me a little that there are people out there who seem to think of that as both a norm and even worse - somehow a good thing. Note how even the guys in his gang feel disturbed by it.

And as far as moral outrage goes, I would hope that most kids undergo some form of hazing rituals before entering adult society. If they can't withstand the bullying of idiots in highschool, then they're unlikely to be strong enough to defend the kind of society that is worth defending, the kind which understands the inherent conflict of life.

yeah I disagree. I think if anything it would work the opposite way around. those that are bullied are weakened by it. Or violence is normalized...

and anyway - even if it was a good thing for the victims - I still wouldnt really want an arsehole as my president - all else being equal.

There should be limits of course, but calling others names and cutting their hair is hardly an outrage. It seems more like typical teenager antagonism.

the physical act makes it a higher level of violation to me. In fact more so even than just punching him a few times.

What was really funny is that he said that he could not remember the incident and that made me think - what kind or arsehole was he all year round that this incident pales into insignificance in his memory? Or more likely... what a stupid liar insulting our intelligence...

Actually - FWIW one guy did try to cut my hair at school with some scissors... But there was no one holding me down... so things ended badly for the instigator. Regardless it would have been better not to have had to deal with that.

[ITZ DENI3D]

I don't see how that makes sense. What does it mean to say that I can judge all I want as long as I know my judgement is relative? By saying it is relative, does that imply that it really doesn't count for anything? Then it's not a real judgement, right? Does it count for something true and real? Then it's no longer relative. Perhaps you mean that it only counts for something meaningful for yourself. So this way you get your cake and eat it too: it counts, but not in a transcultural sense. But that doesn't make sense either, because if it only counts for yourself then once again you're not really making a judgement about the foreign culture at all but only revealing your personal mood or emotion. An evaluative judgement about some external 'x' by definition implies that you are saying something meaningful about 'x', but in your case you are only giving vent to your own internal states. Indeed, even that is going too far and granting you too much, since genuine relativity cannot describe anthing outside of its own linguistic terms---and insofar as your own internal states are equally external to the spoken or written word as the states and actions of others, then it seems to follow that your words apply to neither yourself nor to others. Ultimately, then, it is impossible for me or anyone else to understand what you are talking about.

Lol how do you do that? Ya uhmm... What he said

[ITZ DENI3D]

I cant remember anythign that bad for anyone at my school while i was there. It depresses me a little that there are people out there who seem to think of that as both a norm and even worse - somehow a good thing. Note how even the guys in his gang feel disturbed by it.



yeah I disagree. I think if anything it would work the opposite way around. those that are bullied are weakened by it. Or violence is normalized...

and anyway - even if it was a good thing for the victims - I still wouldnt really want an arsehole as my president - all else being equal.



the physical act makes it a higher level of violation to me. In fact more so even than just punching him a few times.

What was really funny is that he said that he could not remember the incident and that made me think - what kind or arsehole was he all year round that this incident pales into insignificance in his memory? Or more likely... what a stupid liar insulting our intelligence...

Actually - FWIW one guy did try to cut my hair at school with some scissors... But there was no one holding me down... so things ended badly for the instigator. Regardless it would have been better not to have had to deal with that.

Ya I was pretty much made fun of since every day kindergarten and was warned if I took it to a physical level I would be severely punished. My mom even told me I could go to jail for life if I punched someone in the head and they accidentally died because I was so much stronger and bigger than anyone else, she actually said another kid in first grade went to jail for life because he accidentally killed someone after he punched them and they hit their head on the concrete. Needless to say that scared the crap out of me being only six and I still haven't punched anyone in the head till this day... But I did get into fights. I started getting into fights around 5th grade, ever since then I got into a fight at least once a year, usually around the end of the year because my cork eventually popped. People don't think about that kind of stuff. Usually you see a big kid and you think well he can take care of himself, well I could physically ya but no one tried to mess with me on that level obviously. But this made me a very angry person, I felt trapped and out of control. Thankfully I found football where I could hit people without getting consequences! I thought it was fake at first lol, I couldn't believe I was allowed to physically tackle people, I thought I died and went to heaven when I started playing... I used all that anger and frustration since kindergarten and of course my huge muscles to kick ass in football. I knew right then, I had found my purpose in life, my ultimate calling...

Of course you know the whole life thing... I tear my ACL right before I'm about to get offers to go to different colleges. I work my ass of for nothing, next year I mess up my other knee and have to have another surgery... Then the next year 2011, I hurt my knee again at a J.C. doing a simple drill yet sprinting 2000 yards didn't hurt me at all... So I have osteoarthritis in my knees now and I am 20 years old... All I have to think about now is how much all those people pissed me off and how much I hate this world...

As for people not remembering what they did, I think thats bull crap, but then again most people are stupid so I guess its possible. I mean I remember I was about to beat up this dick at my school because I had enough of his mouth. I grabbed him and threw him into a mop bucket, I was very angry. But when I went for him to give him a pounding he was crying and I couldn't blame him, I had a homicidal look in my eyes. Even though he deserved to get beat down, I just couldn't do it, I still felt terrible about it even though I barely even touched him, seeing him cry brought me no satisfaction at all, in fact I felt bad for him and it made me sad seeing someone be so afraid of me... I thought about that for quite a while and still remember it till this day. So I can't contemplate how people couldn't remember what they did in school...

So to answer Zef's query, yes bullying is a big problem... I thought getting made fun of had a purpose in my life, to motivate me to do something I deeply, deeply wanted. But I found out it was just one of many pointless endeavors I had to put up with...

[ITZ DENI3D]

Good discussion/interesting topics, which I find great in this community. Here's my $0.02...

The real question raised by the soul/body dilemma/question is:
Does it matter?

Our answer to this question is what essentially defines our "core values".

If it doesn't matter, then the discussion is merely an interesting intellectual exercise of little lasting or meaningful value. Plenty of people subscribe to this view. I think ShowTek put it most succinctly & clearly as "life is absurd".
It's one reason why I love philosophy but most philosophers not so much (no offense Zef). They often love to intellectually discuss/theorize but are unwilling and/or unable to make an actual decision in conclusion that has practical application in real life behavior/actions. Hence why I chose Engineering over Mathematics & Philosophy in college. I find in real life we have to make decisions with insufficient information all the time. We can't function otherwise. I mean just think about getting married or having kids. Do any of us really know our spouses or what our kids will be like? Trust me, those of us who are married w/kids can say with absolute certainty: No way!
How about the mundane action of driving to work? Do we know with certainty we will make it there safely? No way!

If it does matter, then the discussion is of genuine impact to our soul's journey since the body will cease to function at some point.

At the end of the day, we each decide for ourselves, either explicitly or by default, since none of us knows by experience what occurs to us after the body ceases to function. So thought w/o action is essentially meaningless in my view & no decision has absolute information. There is always uncertainty involved which implies we have to choose with incomplete information. This, by definition, is our "faith" & how we define ourselves. As illustrated earlier, in all decisions from the mundane to life-impacting, this process of "deciding by faith" is pervasive & unavoidable. Hence why the position we take as to whether the soul/body dilemma even matters is an all-defining proposition & drives the rest of our life's direction.

As a final thought, consider the game of CivRev. It's a game where you can just tech mindlessly with no real end goal in mind, mess around, etc... & you might actually win a few times against similarly mindless players. However, against the players who understand the game, tech thoughtfully, stay focused on the end goal(s), etc..., the overwhelming tendency will be to lose against such players & lose badly at that.

Similarly, I find life is better served by approaching it thoughtfully & intentionally as if it the question of soul/body matters. In that sense, while I love intellectual discussion/discourse, it's more than that for me personally. It's an opportunity to pursue truth, experience further self-examination & personal growth, as well as engage in genuine debate with others.

I definitely think this community has a higher ratio of in-depth thinkers than the average FPS, or at least people are more willing to invest time sharing such thoughts anyhow.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

I know this is an ancient post by pedal but I had to reply, since I decided to look at the first page of this thread I feel obligated Without philosophy we would have no religion or science, it simply can't be denied. Philosophy is the key to finding out possible solutions to current problems or even future ones. I understand what you are saying that it has no real value in a world that demands action over a drawn out thinking process, but for humanity to survive in the future I believe philosophy is the key, whether we use it or not is another story... The day philosophy will become irrelevant will be the day that we have nothing left to learn...

[elthrasher]

I was a little surprised the media and the liberals made an issue out of Romney's highschool bullying of fellow students.

You're surprised that somebody would try to score political points over something like this? Do you remember when John Kerry lost the presidential race because he is a bona fide war hero?

The most damning thing for Romney is of course his response to the situation, as is typical of him. He says he doesn't remember. That doesn't ring true and makes his apology mighty hollow. It also doesn't look so great how easy it was for reporters to find former classmates willing to talk about this and how hard it has been for the Romney campaign to find anyone to speak well of young Romney. I think a speech about admitting one's faults and growing as a person with a heartfelt apology and resolve to help other victims of bullying would have made this go away. Instead he doesn't remember, which sounds a lot like doesn't care.

[elthrasher]

Of course you know the whole life thing... I tear my ACL right before I'm about to get offers to go to different colleges. I work my ass of for nothing, next year I mess up my other knee and have to have another surgery... Then the next year 2011, I hurt my knee again at a J.C. doing a simple drill yet sprinting 2000 yards didn't hurt me at all... So I have osteoarthritis in my knees now and I am 20 years old... All I have to think about now is how much all those people pissed me off and how much I hate this world...

Well, that sucks. Do you think you would have played football if you hadn't been bullied? Do you think the game is too dangerous and too hard on the players' bodies? What about these former NFL players who are suing the NFL over their brain injuries or that guy who killed himself last week?

As for people not remembering what they did, I think thats bull crap, but then again most people are stupid so I guess its possible. I mean I remember I was about to beat up this dick at my school because I had enough of his mouth. I grabbed him and threw him into a mop bucket, I was very angry. But when I went for him to give him a pounding he was crying and I couldn't blame him, I had a homicidal look in my eyes. Even though he deserved to get beat down, I just couldn't do it, I still felt terrible about it even though I barely even touched him, seeing him cry brought me no satisfaction at all, in fact I felt bad for him and it made me sad seeing someone be so afraid of me... I thought about that for quite a while and still remember it till this day. So I can't contemplate how people couldn't remember what they did in school...

There, that's genuine. If Romney said something like that, people would drop it.

[ShowtekGER]

they certainly do, i dont know why you would make such a negitive assumption about us..

it seems as though your arguments do not regard the iranian situation and what iran could politically gain from having a nuke.

another important point is that the situation is not equal from the outset. there is an advantaged side, which is the west and israel, and the disadvantaged side, iran and the the rest of the middle east. i think my problem is that if you wanted to make a pragmatic or utilitarian argument you would have to erase this status quo first or at least take it into account as it is crucial for the idea that iran is possibly planning to build WMDs.

[ShowtekGER]

Perhaps you mean that it only counts for something meaningful for yourself. So this way you get your cake and eat it too: it counts, but not in a transcultural sense. But that doesn't make sense either, because if it only counts for yourself then once again you're not really making a judgement about the foreign culture at all but only revealing your personal mood or emotion. An evaluative judgement about some external 'x' by definition implies that you are saying something meaningful about 'x', but in your case you are only giving vent to your own internal states. Indeed, even that is going too far and granting you too much, since genuine relativity cannot describe anthing outside of its own linguistic terms---and insofar as your own internal states are equally external to the spoken or written word as the states and actions of others, then it seems to follow that your words apply to neither yourself nor to others. Ultimately, then, it is impossible for me or anyone else to understand what you are talking about.

i don't understand your confusion nor your argument. why must a judgment be absolute? if truth is indeed in a flux then any statement or judgment is relative. of course, it "counts" in the same way that any truth counts. for the time and situation being. if what i say does not make sense we either have a dualism of universalism and relativism or we are strict absolutists.

explain to me how judgments are not the results of "internal states". they must be unless truth is given by god.

[ShowtekGER]

I was a little surprised the media and the liberals made an issue out of Romney's highschool bullying of fellow students. Some expressed outrage that he called others names and even cut the hair of one student whom he thought was a bit too eccentric and effeminate. The liberals said he crossed the line. It's hard for me to be surprised or outraged, personally.

firstly, i think it's completely normal that liberals exploit this story to their advantage. that's politics.

secondly, i never heard anyone speak of "too eccentric and effeminate". the question is whether romney did it because the other guy was gay. if that was the case i think liberals have a case. but i wouldn't know how to ever find out.

And as far as moral outrage goes, I would hope that most kids undergo some form of hazing rituals before entering adult society. If they can't withstand the bullying of idiots in highschool, then they're unlikely to be strong enough to defend the kind of society that is worth defending, the kind which understands the inherent conflict of life. There should be limits of course, but calling others names and cutting their hair is hardly an outrage. It seems more like typical teenager antagonism.

man, i don't want to live in your world! you sound a little like a cliché over-authoritarian, stern father from the 1950s who endorses war in general and likes to solve conflict with fists.

some people do not view life as a painful struggle. many people do not live lives of painful struggle. that which causes the greatest pain in my personal life is exams.

no one should have to be chased, taken down by several people, and collectively humiliated because of personal characteristics. and i don't think that is normal at all. i never experienced something with that magnitude happening to anyone i know. i only know such bullying from stories and films.

[ShowtekGER]

yeah I disagree. I think if anything it would work the opposite way around. those that are bullied are weakened by it.

absolutely. while i don't think your statement can be universalized, in general people who are regularly bullied have problems with their self-esteem and interpersonal relations later in life and are more prone to psychological illness.

the physical act makes it a higher level of violation to me.

again, absolutely. what i remember as normal is verbal bullying but no punching or humiliating for fun. though, i realize there are very different norms. a friend of mine says they often beat up people for fun. my little brother on the other hand (who is 8) has never been in any kind of fight.

[ScottieX]

Even though he deserved to get beat down, I just couldn't do it, I still felt terrible about it even though I barely even touched him, seeing him cry brought me no satisfaction at all, in fact I felt bad for him and it made me sad seeing someone be so afraid of me... I thought about that for quite a while and still remember it till this day.

Hmm I could vote for you for president
My dad was bit of the "punch them in the nose sort of father". I suppose htere is a bit of pride in the idea that your kids might be rightious dispensers of justice in the school yard.

[ScottieX]

it seems as though your arguments do not regard the iranian situation and what iran could politically gain from having a nuke.

What can iran (as opposed to just the iranian elite) gain from having a nuke? Im waiting on that. I accept that it makes it much harder to overthrow a government if it has nukes but all that does is screw all those protesters.

another important point is that the situation is not equal from the outset. there is an advantaged side, which is the west and israel, and the disadvantaged side, iran and the the rest of the middle east. i think my problem is that if you wanted to make a pragmatic or utilitarian argument you would have to erase this status quo first or at least take it into account as it is crucial for the idea that iran is possibly planning to build WMDs.

that isnt how utilitarian arguments work.

[ShowtekGER]

What can iran (as opposed to just the iranian elite) gain from having a nuke? Im waiting on that. I accept that it makes it much harder to overthrow a government if it has nukes but all that does is screw all those protesters.

good question. i have to be careful not to confuse powerful iranians with the iranian people.

i suppose even though the iranian elite, like any elite, primarily acts in accordance with egoistic wants some of these wants will include the well-being of the general iranian people. too much public discomfort causes demonstration, agitation, a bad international image, and someday perhaps a revolution. thus, by pushing forward the power of iran as a country more resources could possibly be secured for the people. it seems to me that this is true for most nations. the most powerful rulers of this world rule populations that do well materially.

that isnt how utilitarian arguments work.

i think the main point is that an utilitarian argument in a classical sense is meaningless here. firstly, because it is impossible to determine what would be the best solution for everyone. secondly, because an utilitarian solution in this case would probably mean to grant iran some more power and to make it stop pursuing nuclear weaponry. this won't ever be a long-term solution, though, because the status quo of iran and the middle east (without israel) as the disadvantaged ones wouldn't disappear and thus we will face a similar situation in which iran tries to advance its powers again soon.

that's why i said that the ultimate utilitarian argument would be to abolish all national borders and all weapons as only this would truly solve state related problems which would in turn result in maximum happiness. of course, it's disputed whether that would actually lead to general contentment and, furthermore, it will not happen.

[ScottieX]

thus, by pushing forward the power of iran as a country more resources could possibly be secured for the people. it seems to me that this is true for most nations. the most powerful rulers of this world rule populations that do well materially.

yeah - im still not seeing how nukes do any of this. take for example south Africa, how much did their having nukes do for them? or was it just a massive waste of resources that would have been better spent on social welfare or somthing? Or was it just some tiny boost to the authority of the reigeme vis vs the majority black population?

I dont think nukes leverage you economic advantages. if anything they give you disadvantages unles you plan to use them to deter interferance in your anexation of a rich neighbour...

And I can see how having nukes helps the nth korean reigeme, but this is the same reigeme that would rather spend every cent on a useless military than feed their people.

firstly, because it is impossible to determine what would be the best solution for everyone.

meh, you dont need to be sure - some things are just highly probable.

secondly, because an utilitarian solution in this case would probably mean to grant iran some more power and to make it stop pursuing nuclear weaponry.

Im not sure why this would work. unless you are trying to solve a whole different problem related to maybe social welfare spending or somthing.

that's why i said that the ultimate utilitarian argument would be to abolish all national borders and all weapons as only this would truly solve state related problems which would in turn result in maximum happiness. of course, it's disputed whether that would actually lead to general contentment and, furthermore, it will not happen.

I think ive gone into this before but this is a node of control question.
the ultimate utilitarian solution with all nodes of control is to initiate the rapture and jut let everyone into heaven.
With the somewhat limited control of, lets say, the NZ government -> we might instead just apply a little diplomatic pressure, say some mean things at the UN, apply a few sanctions and not invite their diplomats to our parties.

[ITZ DENI3D]

Well, that sucks. Do you think you would have played football if you hadn't been bullied? Do you think the game is too dangerous and too hard on the players' bodies? What about these former NFL players who are suing the NFL over their brain injuries or that guy who killed himself last week?

Probably, because I was always a physical person since I could remember. But I might not of had so much motivation if I wasn't made fun of I'm not sure... I don't think the game is to dangerous, I think life is to dangerous. As long as you enjoy what your doing, no matter what it is or how dangerous, you should do it. Anything you do can be classified as dangerous so ya. I can probably understand why he killed himself and I don't even know him. I mean that is pretty much as competitive as it gets, and to lose that feeling everyday is really devastating.

[ITZ DENI3D]

it seems as though your arguments do not regard the iranian situation and what iran could politically gain from having a nuke.

another important point is that the situation is not equal from the outset. there is an advantaged side, which is the west and israel, and the disadvantaged side, iran and the the rest of the middle east. i think my problem is that if you wanted to make a pragmatic or utilitarian argument you would have to erase this status quo first or at least take it into account as it is crucial for the idea that iran is possibly planning to build WMDs.

Ya, we are advantaged because our ancestors put us in that position. Its the way the world is and has always been. We could easily be Muslims right now in America talking about the extremist Christians down in the middle east. The future is written by the victors, so thats the way it goes...

[ITZ DENI3D]

Hmm I could vote for you for president
My dad was bit of the "punch them in the nose sort of father". I suppose htere is a bit of pride in the idea that your kids might be rightious dispensers of justice in the school yard.

Ya, you couldn't pay me enough to do that job. I wouldn't be able to stand it... Not so much the pressure of making decisions, just dealing with so many stupid people would really make me go insane...

[elthrasher]

Ya, you couldn't pay me enough to do that job. I wouldn't be able to stand it... Not so much the pressure of making decisions, just dealing with so many stupid people would really make me go insane...

Never fear. The minimum age requirement for the job is 35.

[Zefelius]

I cant remember anythign that bad for anyone at my school while i was there. It depresses me a little that there are people out there who seem to think of that as both a norm and even worse - somehow a good thing. Note how even the guys in his gang feel disturbed by it.


Actually - FWIW one guy did try to cut my hair at school with some scissors... But there was no one holding me down... so things ended badly for the instigator. Regardless it would have been better not to have had to deal with that.

I think your final point is at odds with your opening statement. I had said that it was the norm, you seemed to disagree, but as it turned out you yourself went through nearly the exact same incident, namely, someone trying to cut your hair with scissors. It looks like your own experiences add to the evidence that what Romney did wasn't all that unusual for a kid in high school. Of course I think that schools should punish this kind of behavior, but nevertheless it's not as extreme as the liberals have made it out to be.

[Zefelius]

i don't understand your confusion nor your argument. why must a judgment be absolute? if truth is indeed in a flux then any statement or judgment is relative. of course, it "counts" in the same way that any truth counts. for the time and situation being. if what i say does not make sense we either have a dualism of universalism and relativism or we are strict absolutists.

The judgment doesn't necessarily have to be absolute. But as Talbott says in his book on political rights, cultural relativists can't expect us to be persuaded by their critique of cultural imperialism (as with America's exploitation of blacks or conquests against Native Americans) if that critique is merely relative. Yes, the cultural relativist can be critical, I suppose, but it doesn't really count for much and nobody has to care since it's relative. The imperialists can respond that their way of life is good for them and then that's all there is to it. So it seems like, similarly, you can critique the U.S. and Israel as you do, but it's not much different than saying you like blueberries whereas America likes peaches. Not really a true moral debate, but simply a matter of style or taste.

explain to me how judgments are not the results of "internal states". they must be unless truth is given by god.

It's simple: internal states are as much a part of reality as external states. Since reality in each case is external to language, then language, for the skeptic, is no more applicable to those internal states as they are so-called external reality. In other words, psychology should be 100% as mythical as physics or astronomy for the skeptic. Hence skepticism destroys even its subjective connections.

[ScottieX]

I think your final point is at odds with your opening statement. I had said that it was the norm, you seemed to disagree, but as it turned out you yourself went through nearly the exact same incident, namely, someone trying to cut your hair with scissors. It looks like your own experiences add to the evidence that what Romney did wasn't all that unusual for a kid in high school. Of course I think that schools should punish this kind of behavior, but nevertheless it's not as extreme as the liberals have made it out to be.

I was aware of the conflict between the two sentances. the child in me however jsut has difficulty not elaborating on the incident due to the awesomeness of the way I took him out (a Super star of wrestling / kung-fu combo) and several other fairy tale like aspects to it. But honestly it wasnt much in the way of violation - i was calm and confident all the time.

There was no gang of guys hunting some defenseless effeminate fellow and marking him as their B*tch. Even if I had lost the guy wouldnt have gone that far (and it would not have been tolerated by the class). Maybe I'm misreading what happened with Romney and treating it as somthing bigger than it was but it sounds like it was a big thing to that guy.

That being said - I wouldnt vote for the arse who was trying to bully me either.

[Zefelius]

I was aware of the conflict between the two sentances. the child in me however jsut has difficulty not elaborating on the incident due to the awesomeness of the way I took him out (a Super star of wrestling / kung-fu combo) and several other fairy tale like aspects to it. But honestly it wasnt much in the way of violation - i was calm and confident all the time.

There was no gang of guys hunting some defenseless effeminate fellow and marking him as their B*tch. Even if I had lost the guy wouldnt have gone that far (and it would not have been tolerated by the class). Maybe I'm misreading what happened with Romney and treating it as somthing bigger than it was but it sounds like it was a big thing to that guy.

That being said - I wouldnt vote for the arse who was trying to bully me either.

I wish I were a superstar of wrestling and kung fu! I was picked on all the time as a kid, but wasn't so good at kung-fu!

Bullying doesn't make Romney look good, but kids do all sorts of ridiculous things. I know I did (and still do!). To me it has about as much weight in my voting tendencies as finding out that a candidate didn't enjoy doing homework in high school---what a shocker!!

[ScottieX]

Bullying doesn't make Romney look good, but kids do all sorts of ridiculous things. I know I did (and still do!). To me it has about as much weight in my voting tendencies as finding out that a candidate didn't enjoy doing homework in high school---what a shocker!!

Yeah - and presidents engage in corruption, that doesnt mean you dont give them a hard time about it. Isn't yopur president supposd to be the 1 out of 200 million who is best to lead the country?
Surely bottom 10% is not OK just because there are some people worse...

I wonder why at school we consider it is "ok" for a kid to be beaten up or humiliated or whatever but you can't just do that to adults.
You know... maybe you could just grab a politician like Romney and hold him down and cut his hair. maybe make a video of it and put it on youtube - (since he has guys who can probably fix his hair up fast). After that you can then defend yourself from the police with "I forget... but I know Romney remembers it wrong..".

maybe if you are amazingly rich (and in with the police) you can get them to completly ignore the incident and then expel Romney from politics for being boring.

[ScottieX]

I wish I were a superstar of wrestling and kung fu! I was picked on all the time as a kid, but wasn't so good at kung-fu!

haha, I had a natural tallent, but at that stage I hadn't taken classes (or not many) I had however seen the crane kick on karate kid, the back-roll throw on a computer game I played alot and the DDT on WWW on TV.

[elthrasher]

Bullying doesn't make Romney look good, but kids do all sorts of ridiculous things. I know I did (and still do!). To me it has about as much weight in my voting tendencies as finding out that a candidate didn't enjoy doing homework in high school---what a shocker!!

It's not about what he did then, but how he deals with it now. That's true of all these things.

[Zefelius]

I wonder why at school we consider it is "ok" for a kid to be beaten up or humiliated or whatever but you can't just do that to adults.
You know... maybe you could just grab a politician like Romney and hold him down and cut his hair. maybe make a video of it and put it on youtube - (since he has guys who can probably fix his hair up fast). After that you can then defend yourself from the police with "I forget... but I know Romney remembers it wrong..".
.

Adults beat up on each other all the time, and they also kill each other. There are laws against this, as there are against child abuse, but we endorse it all the time during war. Of course war need not be necessary in the future if we continue to evolve as a species, but even then I believe conflict on some level will be necessary in order to continue our evolutionary trajectory. Repressing the value of conflict blinds us to the human condition, which makes us weaker insofar as we fail to rise up and embrace the inherent challenges of mortal existence.

I would prefer that hazing not be left up to the kids. It would be much better if adults, as has been done previously in history, took responsibilty for the hazing rituals. The testing should include physical as well as psychological elements. Kids who are too weak to endure these rituals can be turned into slave labor, at least until they prove to society that they deserve the same rights and privileges as everyone else. One problem in American society is that we have been influenced a great deal by John Locke's political theory, and we now accept it as given that everyone is born with the intrinsic right to be free and equal. To me this is on par with religious indoctrination.