821–830 of 862 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level. I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.) You're not suggesting that, but then put up your own requirements for someone's ethics to be "valid". So in the end you are filtering others ethical choices by your own requirements. And your logic seems to work backwards: someo…
My requirements for someone's ethical opinions to be "valid" are that they don't criticize the field of ethics as useless. I guess that is a "requirement" I have, but it's a pretty nitpicking, useless distinction to make. If someone criticizes the French language, but doesn't speak a word of French, sorry, but I don't have much respect for their opinion on French. And no, I don't "assume they aren't well thought out,…
In a non-theological world, the source of ethics can be anything - parents, community, study of ethhics. None of them is more valid than another - because requiring "a respect for the field of philosophy" is a ethical position in and of itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level. I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.) You're not suggesting that, but then put up your own requirements for someone's ethics to be "valid". So in the end you are filtering others ethical choices by your own requirements. And your logic seems to work backwards: someo…
One of my best friends is a philosophy grad, and another is a very intelligent financier. What we've come to realize is that speaking and writing and making arguments is fruitless. You either have had the embodied experiences to recognize a statement is directionally correct -- to various magnitudes -- or you don't. No amount of words will change that. It is my experience -- after seeing the quality of thinking from…
How so? This would infer some universal set of morality, which doesn't exist.
> Anyway, this is tiring. Philosophical discussions are not something to do with strangers.
I think it's tiring because you view ethics and morality as a box that thinking has to happen in. But it's not. Ethics and morality can be anything (as we've seen through human history).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care what Trump says. I care what the Iranians say. Here is an Iranian, Persian language interview with Ali Motahari, deputy speaker of the Iranian parliament: https://www.iranintl.com/202204244448 He says: >از همان ابتدا که وارد فعالیت هسته ای شدیم هدفمان ساخت بمب و تقویت قوای بازدارنده بود، اما نتوانستیم محرمانه بودن این مساله را حفظ کنیم In English: > From the very beginning when we entered nuclear activit…
Like I said, you're cherry-picking. You believe some of what the Iranians say, and not the rest. You believe some of what Trump says, but not the rest. And you do care what Trump says, since you're buying his bogus, self-contradicting justification for going to war with Iran. Iran wasn't a threat to the US. Edit: that 2022 interview you quoted from an Iranian not affiliated to any nuclear program or knowledgeable abo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh if you are looking for dirt, you can find dirt allmost anywhere, but im gemeral I do see a difference in making a website for a kindergarten, vs applying the most efficient tech to track and target children with manipulative ads.
Sure, but maybe you'll have to ad dark patterns, track users or create ad campaigns yourself for this kindergarten website. Maybe that kindergarten want to cut food and people costs to make more money. Which could lead to very real consequences for the kids as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine you are stranded in your home with all your loved ones, and you get a call from your "warmonger" president and the matter is urgent; he says "We have received intel regarding a enemy plan to bomb your house in 30 mins. This report is only x% reliable, but we have the exact location of the enemy and we have birds in air that can hit them in 5 mins. This might escalate into a larger conflict, Do you want us to…
100 is my answer. Exactly my question to you: What is your percentage to say no lets do not take actions. Because again; with this perspective every single action is legitimate. There is a chance for everything. If there is a weapon that can kill every human on the planet, every country will race to invent it because every country will try to invent it. Every action is valid. Every weapon development is okey, because…
We both know that it is not true. Because by this logic, you wouldn't fire a weapon at someone who is about to stab your wife or child. Because there is a small chance that they will die of a heart attack before they can do it. So it is some value that is < 100%, but apparently that is not good enough for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The idea of teaching some sort of “secular” ethics has never made sense to me … An intro ethics class won't shy away from religion, it comes up a lot. You'll most likely even discuss differences in different sects of Christianity. You should also have the discussion of if morals are universal (and if so, which ones) or are all made up. Secular just means you discuss more than one viewpoint. The idea of teaching mor…
[flagged]
“Your viewpoint” is a superstitious one that stole everything from previous superstitions. It’s also irredeemably immoral and violent. Not to mention based in an obvious fantasy which should have been left in the Bronze Age where it belonged.
You have a mind. Learn to use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
North Korea engages in no less saber-rattling. Why is the US not attacking Kim Jong Un?
I'm not familiar enough with Korean culture to know if suicide-for-ideology is culturally acceptable and expected. In Islamic ideology that is the highest honour.
That is very boring, caveman logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is false. You will finally google this claim you've been repeating without evidence, and realize there's no supporting evidence for this claim. I guarantee it, because there is no evidence for this claim .
The Republic of China has not amended its constitution to eliminate its claim to all of China. You may be referring to the views of the current ruling party on what Taiwan should be, but constitutionally, it still claims everything.
I tend to read the constitutions and legal documents of countries I live in. I have read the constitution many times. It's not in there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Both sides officially consider themselves to be China There is no "China, the country." "China" just means, essentially, "Empire." It's like a country claiming to be Europe, or maybe better, The Roman Empire. Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true. > They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all. Only one…
"China" is analogous to "France," not "Europe." There was a civil war inside China, with the rulers of both competing sides claiming the entire country as their own for decades after the shooting ended. Inside Taiwanese politics, there has been a shift relatively recently (in the last 20 years), but it would be a major shift if that were actually implemented as official policy. > Many States may try to make claims fo…
Personally I think it's important for modern people to reject this feudal era idea that a government can claim a mandate to rule over certain territories just because of the territory of previous governments, or because of the distributions of certain ethnicities, religions, or languages. I think it's important for people to maintain an identity separate from any given government, to defang the ability of governments to leverage racialized nationalism to protect the state's continuity at all costs, even to the detriment to the people living in its territory.
By the way, it remains false that Taiwan makes any claims to PRC territory. Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.