Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[Zefelius]

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

Sure, he laughed it off. But maybe that's because he believes as I do that kids will be kids, faults and all. Now if he had cut up another student, knocked him around, and put him in the hospital, I too would be surprised if he didn't condemn such bullying more adamantly and more quickly. But all he did was wrestle another kid to the ground and cut his hair. Really not a huge deal.

[Pedal2Metal]

http://csis.org/publication/rethinki...ns-search-bomb

A substantive report & analysis on the Iran nuclear topic for those interested. It's long so set aside some time but worth the read.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

Sure, he laughed it off. But maybe that's because he believes as I do that kids will be kids, faults and all. Now if he had cut up another student, knocked him around, and put him in the hospital, I too would be surprised if he didn't condemn such bullying more adamantly and more quickly. But all he did was wrestle another kid to the ground and cut his hair. Really not a huge deal.

I'm not trying to belabor the point because this clearly is not the deciding factor for how I will cast my vote, but it's not really up to Romney whether or not it's a big deal. Of course he doesn't want it to be a big deal. You know what? It's honestly not a big deal for me either. The reason, once again, that it is any kind of deal is because his response to it has been bad. No, not make me feel bad. Bad politics. A skilled politician sees this as an opportunity to show he's a changed man. A poor politician brushes it off and the news cycle keeps buzzing until something else happens.

I'm not attacking Romney or saying people shouldn't vote for him over this. I am analyzing his strategy and pointing out that it is bad. Much like rushing libraries in CivRev doesn't make you a bad person, it merely makes you a bad player.

[Pedal2Metal]

Sure, he laughed it off. But maybe that's because he believes as I do that kids will be kids, faults and all. Now if he had cut up another student, knocked him around, and put him in the hospital, I too would be surprised if he didn't condemn such bullying more adamantly and more quickly. But all he did was wrestle another kid to the ground and cut his hair. Really not a huge deal.

I agree it's not a big deal for me personally but Mitt being disinterested about it probably isn't the smartest choice either. He could probably parlay this into some kind of political uptick if he took even a small risk emotionally but that's the nature of ego-driven people (all politicians imo), they rarely admit any kind of mistake with any real level of emotional transparency & authenticity. I think that's the issue that's sticking in everyone's craw & given his biggest issue is connecting with voters on a personal level, this would seem to be yet another opportunity missed on his part imo, especially since my guess is the vast majority of people agree with you so it's a fairly low-risk opportunity to curry some favor with a sliver of people who might be on the fence otherwise. Of course, he can't change his stripes any easier than anyone else so doubtful he'll ever be anything other than viewed as somewhat "stiff" & impersonal by the voters.

EDIT: Then again, the uptick & sliver may be so inconsequential as to not be worth spending any additional energy on. I'm sure the political advisors have looked at it 9 ways to Sunday regardless. Probably at this point, if Mitt tries to appear "genuine", that will actually do more harm than good by looking like yet another flip-flop. At least if he stays buttoned-down through the election, he'll at least be consistently boring.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ShowtekGER]

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 don't know anything about south african WMDs and i agree that money can be spent a lot better societally. but it would a mistake do dismiss this case based on one analogy, right? circumstances might be completely different for iran. both our points seem like speculation to me.

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

i don't think you can find the solution that is highly probably best for everyone either.

[ShowtekGER]

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.

but why? if every truth is relative then we can just continue like we always did. exchange arguments, disband old truths, construe new truths. we abandoned outright imperialism on the basis of the argument that other ethnicities are inherently inferior to the european ones. now on the basis of the argument that there are no significant inherent differences between ethnicities we stopped that and other practices. neither argument had any absolute value. yet, we chose another one, let ourselves be persuaded by another one. truth doesn't need to be absolute in order for us to commit to it.

you're right when you say that nobody has to listen or care. but we do so anyway since ever and will forever.

but i don't quite understand you. i thought you don't commit to any strict laws of the universe either. you make it sound as though you think there are, in fact, unshakable truths.

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.

i don't see how relativism must necessarily be intertwined with the philosophy of language but let's take it from here.

do you mean that language can never accurately describe reality when you say that reality is external to language? if so, i think you make the mistake of thinking that because there is no absolute reality the skeptic or relativist must believe in nothing or hold everything to equal value. of course, he can still value some truths over others but he is aware that those value relationships he construes are relative. this is the same argument i was making about cultural relativism. we shouldn't debase it to value judgments that posit that every culture deserves the exact same treatment. theoretically, cultural relativism doesn't necessarily have any effect on national relationships at all.

[ShowtekGER]

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.

haha, you couldn't consciously and voluntarily bring up the brutality to do this

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.

without that we would go back to slavery and (more) misery. why so bitter? pursue a marxist society instead. its realization would be a lot more fun for everyone and that includes you.

[Pedal2Metal]

i thought you don't commit to any strict laws of the universe either.

That, by definition, is a strict law. The fact you continually don't realize this is bizarre. In short, logically there exists at least 1 strict law for the universe (i.e.: there are no strict laws, a strict law by definition), possibly more. This is inescapable, despite willful delusions to the contrary.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

pursue a marxist society instead. its realization would be a lot more fun for everyone and that includes you.

Really?!? Clearly historical & present-day reality have little bearing on anyone's most sacred beliefs & treasured hopes. Nice to see we're all the same underneath (creatures of blind faith) when you strip away the facade of intellectualism.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

why so bitter?

So there should be no standard for wielding power? My intepretation of your personal views expressed here would be in a nutshell that you seek to abolish the existence of power. However, such an idea presumes that such a solution exists. I hold that such a solution does not exist (ie.: the null set). You must prove such a solution exists before you can possible begin to define such a solution.

In my view, power intrinsically exists within the universe, therefore, ultimately, it can not be destroyed. That's why any such utopian ideals which are ultimately based in the annihilation of power are impossible to achieve or realize. They are contrary to the nature of the universe, which we do not control with our minds, despite any arguments of whether the universe actually exists or not, we don't control it in either case.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ScottieX]

i don't know anything about south african WMDs and i agree that money can be spent a lot better societally. but it would a mistake do dismiss this case based on one analogy, right? circumstances might be completely different for iran. both our points seem like speculation to me.

they might be. but you havent even proposed a hypothetical reason why that might be the case. so forgive me that i find it uncconvincing. irans stated reason would probably be as a nuclear deterant to the US invading and annexing them for their oil or israel making some sort of taco out of their babies. Neither of which would be feasible in the absence of them seeking nuclear weapons and their leadership acting like a bunch of crazies.

i don't think you can find the solution that is highly probably best for everyone either.

hmm hard to see how one can make any decisions in life if it works that way. we would all be buridan's ass.

[ScottieX]

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. .

haha it is war on the playground.
well i am not seeking romney's execution, just saying that it is reasonable to think he may be an arse if he acted as an arse as a child and that you might take that as a reason not to vote for him. its way past the statute of limitations for his assult on hte boy - but also a crime against a child should be taken seriously and be seen to be taken seriously.

[ShowtekGER]

That, by definition, is a strict law. The fact you continually don't realize this is bizarre. In short, logically there exists at least 1 strict law for the universe (i.e.: there are no strict laws, a strict law by definition), possibly more. This is inescapable, despite willful delusions to the contrary.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

what delusion do you suffer from? you say this again and again, i reply again and again, you do not reply back again and again. when i as a relativist argue that even relativism is relative there are no logical inconsistencies. i probably don't exaggerate when i say that i've stated this more than 5 times in response to you.

[ShowtekGER]

Really?!? Clearly historical & present-day reality have little bearing on anyone's most sacred beliefs & treasured hopes. Nice to see we're all the same underneath (creatures of blind faith) when you strip away the facade of intellectualism.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

VERY obviously, i am not referring to any of the tyrannic "socialist" and "communist" hellholes we've seen during the last 100 years.

[ShowtekGER]

So there should be no standard for wielding power? My intepretation of your personal views expressed here would be in a nutshell that you seek to abolish the existence of power. However, such an idea presumes that such a solution exists. I hold that such a solution does not exist (ie.: the null set). You must prove such a solution exists before you can possible begin to define such a solution.

that's not what i think. there will always be power relations between humans or, alternatively, as soon as they are utterly eradicated humanity ceases to exist because the purpose of life would've been fulfilled. the reality of perfect harmony and happiness. of course, we won't see that anytime soon. but a true communist society might bring us a lot closer

[ShowtekGER]

they might be. but you havent even proposed a hypothetical reason why that might be the case. so forgive me that i find it uncconvincing. irans stated reason would probably be as a nuclear deterant to the US invading and annexing them for their oil or israel making some sort of taco out of their babies. Neither of which would be feasible in the absence of them seeking nuclear weapons and their leadership acting like a bunch of crazies.

i have argued that iran would gain more power in the region. it could probably exert more influence in a variety of possible ways. perhaps deciding the price of its own oil. it could be anything. i think it totally works for north korea. they have a say in almost anything there. who would be afraid of them if what they had was only a military. you might argue that the north korean population is actually one of the most neglected in the world but i guess we won't find out whether its conditions would be better or worse if its government had never pursued WMDs. the north koran elite would have probably just spent it on other military expenditures, more laughable space rockets, or 12 extra ponies for kim sung-durr, etc.

hmm hard to see how one can make any decisions in life if it works that way. we would all be buridan's ass.

all we can do is make qualified assessments. human relations can't be accurately calculated like a math assignment.

[ITZ DENI3D]

I'm not attacking Romney or saying people shouldn't vote for him over this. I am analyzing his strategy and pointing out that it is bad. Much like rushing libraries in CivRev doesn't make you a bad person, it merely makes you a bad player.

I adamantly disagree, libraries are good if rushed in the right situations. I use libraries in almost half of my games and usually I win. I don't always rush libraries but if the situation permits it I will...

[ScottieX]

i have argued that iran would gain more power in the region. it could probably exert more influence in a variety of possible ways. perhaps deciding the price of its own oil.

how does a nuke help that unless it is via threatening to nuke saudi arabia? If that is the case then um thats not what i'd consider good power.

Like with a union oil prices are manipulated by the suppliers through controling the amount they all produce in any given period.

That involves consideration of the various effects of cutting supply (for example encouraging alternatives to be developed, slowing the global economy and thus reducing demand) and also by the increased incentive for others to produce more if they cut (eg a country with spare prodution capacity like saudi arabia would have an incentive to raise production if iran reduced it)...

Now Iran could threaten to nuke saudi arabia if it did that.. but if saudi arabia was to give in to that sort of threat they are on the verge of handing their country over to iran (iran effectively becomes their finance minister, and as i understand it they really really hate each other)... worse yet there are lots of countries well out of their reach that would free ride off their increase in the price of oil...

i think it totally works for north korea. they have a say in almost anything there. who would be afraid of them if what they had was only a military.

what do they have a say in? Best you can say is they get to shell south koreans every now and then with a degree of impuity. Even the south koreans, however, dont have infinite paitience.

the north koran elite would have probably just spent it on other military expenditures, more laughable space rockets, or 12 extra ponies for kim sung-durr, etc.

they pursue nukes because it helps them to stay in power or improves their power - thats how they work. hence it is bad for the people even aside from being a waste.

all we can do is make qualified assessments. human relations can't be accurately calculated like a math assignment.

qualified assesments are calculations like a maths assignment.

[ITZ DENI3D]

So there should be no standard for wielding power? My intepretation of your personal views expressed here would be in a nutshell that you seek to abolish the existence of power. However, such an idea presumes that such a solution exists. I hold that such a solution does not exist (ie.: the null set). You must prove such a solution exists before you can possible begin to define such a solution.

In my view, power intrinsically exists within the universe, therefore, ultimately, it can not be destroyed. That's why any such utopian ideals which are ultimately based in the annihilation of power are impossible to achieve or realize. They are contrary to the nature of the universe, which we do not control with our minds, despite any arguments of whether the universe actually exists or not, we don't control it in either case.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

Everything that has a beginning has an end... Even black holes will die out eventually... Energy/power is one of the least abundant resources in the universe, which is why it is so sought after.

[ITZ DENI3D]

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.

I actually would've prefered to grow up in the spartan societies back in the day because I believe I would've excelled. But for human progress I don't believe all of this is necessary. This isn't the animal kingdom, we don't have to show our dominance every time we feel threatened, insecure, or angry. If it was I could've put down a lot of people by now but I don't because I value intelligence over physicality. How would you feel if I walked by you and just decided to humiliate you and show my dominance by forcing you to eat dirt or cut your hair? If you resisted I would break your fingers or something to that nature just to ensure you got the point. I don't see how that is necessary to have a stronger society. In fact this almost sounds like what the Nazi's were trying to accomplish, weeding out the weak so that the strong will survive and repopulate. Not saying you're a Nazi just saying your position on this subject is similar to theirs in that they strongly believed in weeding out the weak to have a stronger society... In Hitler youth camps they had kids fight each other bare knuckles until the camp leader said enough, so do you agree with that? It was monitored by adults so I assume you would agree with it to some point?

[elthrasher]

I adamantly disagree, libraries are good if rushed in the right situations. I use libraries in almost half of my games and usually I win. I don't always rush libraries but if the situation permits it I will...

Usually win is kind of meaningless if you're playing ranked games. Of course you usually win. At any rate, if you want to discuss strategy, that's what this forum is for, but we've kind of done the library thing to death. I do hope my point that I was criticizing Romney's strategy, not his character came through. Careful readers will note I said basically the same thing as Pedal.

[ScottieX]

I actually would've prefered to grow up in the spartan societies back in the day because I believe I would've excelled. But for human progress I don't believe all of this is necessary. This isn't the animal kingdom, we don't have to show our dominance every time we feel threatened, insecure, or angry. If it was I could've put down a lot of people by now but I don't because I value intelligence over physicality. How would you feel if I walked by you and just decided to humiliate you and show my dominance by forcing you to eat dirt or cut your hair? If you resisted I would break your fingers or something to that nature just to ensure you got the point. I don't see how that is necessary to have a stronger society. In fact this almost sounds like what the Nazi's were trying to accomplish, weeding out the weak so that the strong will survive and repopulate. Not saying you're a Nazi just saying your position on this subject is similar to theirs in that they strongly believed in weeding out the weak to have a stronger society...

Yeah the medicine that Zef proposes looks and smells like the disease he is trying to prevent.

[ITZ DENI3D]

Usually win is kind of meaningless if you're playing ranked games. Of course you usually win. At any rate, if you want to discuss strategy, that's what this forum is for, but we've kind of done the library thing to death. I do hope my point that I was criticizing Romney's strategy, not his character came through. Careful readers will note I said basically the same thing as Pedal.

I'm only talking about forum games. In ranked I do it a lot more...

[ScottieX]

take the library discussion elsewhere!!

[ITZ DENI3D]

take the library discussion elsewhere!!

Damnit lol I knew as soon as I saw that we would get off topic, of course in this thread I don't really know if that is possible or not

[Pedal2Metal]

I heard a great quote tonight from the movie, "Killer Elite":

"Life is like licking honey from a thorn."

Simply beautiful.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Careful readers will note I said basically the same thing as Pedal.

LOL!

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

what delusion do you suffer from? you say this again and again, i reply again and again, you do not reply back again and again. when i as a relativist argue that even relativism is relative there are no logical inconsistencies. i probably don't exaggerate when i say that i've stated this more than 5 times in response to you.

You've said nothing logical in the above sentences, just words. Ok, but if you refuse to follow the laws of logic, there is nothing to discuss insofar as logic is concerned (we can discuss other things though). It is obvious that asserting "Everything is relative." or "There are no absolutes." is an absolute assertion, contradicting itself. Therefore, one can logically conclude there is at least 1 absolute assertion, possibly others. No one can force you to accept the rules of logic (well, maybe someone can but I can't & won't), but if you do, there is no escaping this logical conclusion. You willfully refuse to accept this obvious logical truth because of the ramifications to your willful deluded construction of a relativist picture with no frame. Yet, you don't possess the personal moral purity of your convictions to admit your willful delusion. I find that puzzling myself. Are you ashamed of your beliefs and/or find them unsatisfying? It would appear so from where I'm standing. All systems of belief, at the pure core, are unprovable. We simply choose to believe them. So I'm baffled why you resist logic irrationally in the name of rationality. It's quite the conundrum really. In some ways, I think you are the best living example I know of the creedo you aspire to: Life is absurd. In other words, you embody literally the absurdist philosophy to which you adhere. Perhaps that is the answer to the conundrum. So be it. That's a double-edged sword. In some ways, that's probably the highest compliment that one can ever receive in any system of belief/thought: purity of devotion/example. I'm not saying I agree with you or like it, but I must say I've never met anyone who embodies absurdity with more devotion than you. On the other hand, I'm not so sure I'd want to embody absurdity better than anyone else.

Regarding marxism:
My earlier point was not to indict practical marxism. As you pointed out, that is obvious, so clearly that wasn't my point. I was also aware of your devotion to theoretical marxism (which was closer to my real point). It was to point out how everyone, even the vaunted relativistic idealist/absurdist, etc..., as I have always asserted, when you strip away all the words, all the reasoning, etc... what are you left with? The naked truth that core beliefs define every single person on the planet, without exception. In your case, you have some fundamental ideals which have to-date, no evidence whatsoever of working in reality as theorized (in fact there is enormous evidence to the contrary) & yet you still believe in your heart in the theoretical marxist vision. That's exactly what I'm referring to: that residual purity of conviction & belief despite all practical evidence to the contrary. THAT was my point but apparently it was so obvious, you seemed to have missed it.

In other words, you too are a creature of blind faith, devoted to your core beliefs, as we all are ultimately at our cores. The difference? Some come to realize this & face the truth of it, some don't. Simple as that. I was not indicting your belief in marxism but rather using that to make a larger point.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ITZ DENI3D]

I heard a great quote tonight from the movie, "Killer Elite":

"Life is like licking honey from a thorn."

Simply beautiful.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

I would say life is like being drained by a leech...

[ITZ DENI3D]

In other words, you too are a creature of blind faith, devoted to your core beliefs, as we all are ultimately at our cores. The difference? Some come to realize this & face the truth of it, some don't. Simple as that. I was not indicting your belief in marxism but rather using that to make a larger point.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

I guess I am if I choose not to believe in god then... The difference between people who don't believe and those who do is that the people who don't are using, to the best of their knowledge basic reasoning that there is no god. So while they wouldn't consider it a leap of faith, it is potentially a big risk. The only risk people take by devoting their lives to their religion is that they risk wasting their lives, and since they won't know until they die I guess it really isn't a risk... So religious people don't really have to risk anything unless they choose the wrong religion

Love the South Park episode when everyone is in hell and they are asking what religion was the right one

Hell director: "Mormons, Mormons is the answer you were looking for, Mormons."
People: "Ahhhhhhhhhhhh man...".... Ohh, classic :>)

[ShowtekGER]

It is obvious that asserting "Everything is relative." or "There are no absolutes." is an absolute assertion, contradicting itself. Therefore, one can logically conclude there is at least 1 absolute assertion, possibly others.

as long as both statements are meant to be relative then, of course, they are logically consistent. it's just a matter of consistently not being an universalist.

if you ain't got it by now then you just ain't getting it.

if you refuse to follow the laws of logic [...] No one can force you to accept the rules of logic [...] You willfully refuse to accept this obvious logical truth [...] your willful deluded construction [...] you don't possess the personal moral purity of your convictions to admit your willful delusion [...] I find that puzzling myself [...] Are you ashamed of your beliefs and/or find them unsatisfying

content is overvalued!

[ShowtekGER]

In your case, you have some fundamental ideals which have to-date, no evidence whatsoever of working in reality as theorized (in fact there is enormous evidence to the contrary)

well, there are examples of anarchist and communist systems working every once in a while if you care to look. mostly, they function at the level of smaller communes which is what social anarchist though usually advocates.

this village has lived anarchist communist for a long time: http://www.spectrezine.org/marinaled...r-world-exists

not saying that it's perfect but i think examples like these directly prove that it's not impossible. perfection will never be reached but we can always advance societally. the worst argument is that what we have now, a no longer really functioning form of capitalism, is the best possible system and the teleological end of the development of human society.

[Pedal2Metal]

as long as both statements are meant to be relative then, of course, they are logically consistent. it's just a matter of consistently not being an universalist.

if you ain't got it by now then you just ain't getting it.

Your propensity to change the meaning of words as it suits you with the your inability to project yourself out of your own frame of reference & subject it to the laws of logic in order to observe & logically define your own frame of reference results in a willful & resilient delusion, with respect to the laws of logic which are universal (despite your resilient delusion to the contrary).

Zef attempted to address these issues with your reasoning, also unsuccessfully. As you so eloquently stated, you just ain't getting it.
You will forever be logically illogical, yet in your own mind be supremely logical. So be it.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

well, there are examples of anarchist and communist systems working every once in a while if you care to look. mostly, they function at the level of smaller communes which is what social anarchist though usually advocates.

this village has lived anarchist communist for a long time: http://www.spectrezine.org/marinaled...r-world-exists

not saying that it's perfect but i think examples like these directly prove that it's not impossible. perfection will never be reached but we can always advance societally. the worst argument is that what we have now, a no longer really functioning form of capitalism, is the best possible system and the teleological end of the development of human society.

Scale matters. This is the problem with anecdotes logically. You can maintain any spiritual vision you choose (& I'm not challenging your right to do so) but to prove & demonstrate something logically as a universal principle that is achievable is something altogether different.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/sc...o-obesity.html

Pretty interesting. Practical anecdotal evidence that habitual self-indulgence can lead to relentless degradation of our bodies (perhaps our lives & our society too, though that's my own extrapolation).

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Zefelius]

but why? if every truth is relative then we can just continue like we always did. exchange arguments, disband old truths, construe new truths. we abandoned outright imperialism on the basis of the argument that other ethnicities are inherently inferior to the european ones. now on the basis of the argument that there are no significant inherent differences between ethnicities we stopped that and other practices. neither argument had any absolute value. yet, we chose another one, let ourselves be persuaded by another one. truth doesn't need to be absolute in order for us to commit to it.

We can abandon old arguments whenever we like according to your argument. But it doesn't seem like there is any moral or objective need to do so, and therefore it's an arbitray decision. If that's your position then you're being consistent. But as soon as a cultural relativist critiques the West as being morally bankrupt, or even argues that it is in the West's best interest to take up more pragmatic or politically enlightened policies, then there is an inconsistency since whether or not a policy is better than another one even pragmatically speaking relies upon some form of empirical evidence. Mind you, I'm not personally against empirical evidence, but I'm merely following the cultural relativism argument to its conclusions.

but i don't quite understand you. i thought you don't commit to any strict laws of the universe either. you make it sound as though you think there are, in fact, unshakable truths.

You're exactly right: neither of us believe in the myth of unshakable truths. But we've always differed on the nuances of our moral and epistemological skepticism. Like you, I believe that all values can only take place within intersubjective contexts, but unlike you I've always questioned whether those contexts can be sharply delimited from meaningless matter. Since I believe that all things are in constant flux, I have to affirm that even our values point to something outside of language and subjective feeling. I get the sense that for you there is no escape from our perceptions/language/mind/culture/whatever else.

[Zefelius]

take the library discussion elsewhere!!

Hahaha! I think that's the first time in years that anyone has pointed out an inappropriate theme for this thread!!! ha!

On a side note, I've sometimes wondered what 2K thought about this thread when it first came out. Technically speaking, it's probably against the rules to have these kinds of discussions in the Civ Rev forums.

[Zefelius]

Your propensity to change the meaning of words as it suits you with the your inability to project yourself out of your own frame of reference & subject it to the laws of logic in order to observe & logically define your own frame of reference results in a willful & resilient delusion, with respect to the laws of logic which are universal (despite your resilient delusion to the contrary).

Are you sure you're not an academic????

[Zefelius]

do you mean that language can never accurately describe reality when you say that reality is external to language? if so, i think you make the mistake of thinking that because there is no absolute reality the skeptic or relativist must believe in nothing or hold everything to equal value. of course, he can still value some truths over others but he is aware that those value relationships he construes are relative. this is the same argument i was making about cultural relativism. we shouldn't debase it to value judgments that posit that every culture deserves the exact same treatment. theoretically, cultural relativism doesn't necessarily have any effect on national relationships at all.

Okay, so the relativist can hold up some values higher than others. But since there is no reason which explains these choices, the choices are arbitrary. And I think that was my basic point all along: the moral relativist can't pretend to be making judgements when those judgements are arbitrary, since the meaning of a judgement by definition is that it is something more than a random event; it utilizes criteria in forming its views. The relativist doesn't make judgements, but simply coughs up random animal sounds without any meaning. jhsdfjasrhfbhbadf~!!!

[Zefelius]

About half a year ago I picked up Dead Space 2 and loved it. I also thought it was pretty hard. I've started playing it again just for the hell of it and now, obviously, it's much easier.

Playing it again reminds me of a recent article I read on habit, and how there's a lot more neural activity in the brain when we first learn something (like a rat does in a maze) than after we've mastered it. In a way that seems obvious, but I think we could be easily deceived into thinking we're awfully smart when we do something quite well, like when we've mastered a video game. Since we do better after we've played something many times it may reinforce our ego, but we learn more and become smarter if we pick up new habits, master new games, and the like.