Well, that was fun.

[Faitality]

Wow. You know what's really funny, Robert, is just the other day as I was making a jam sandwich, I thought about you. I thought about what you said about Faith Hope and I laughed at the reactions of those surrounding you .. I said "if this man is conducting a social experiment, he's doing a hella good job at maintaining his stance". And dropped the subject.

 

 

 

Props to you in the long run, Sable; that was interesting at best.

[i_love_burritos]

[Talks in Clouseau-esque way] Right, right pulling the old "just pretending" - "dont hate me" trick, ah' yes old one that, especially on the tubes. Monsieur! You appear to have a beump on your head.[/Talks in Clouseau-esque way]

[fastortoise]

So no, I'm not just an authoritarian douchebag. It was definitely an interesting experiment though. I've tried acting the commie on other forums, and people treat the authoritarian side far, far worse.

 

You're a douche either which way. The fact that you backed out on your e-personality and created a thread to make sure you don't seem like a douche to all of us makes you more of a douche, since that's essentially what douches do.

[EdgedThesis]

[Talks in Clouseau-esque way] Right, right pulling the old "just pretending" - "dont hate me" trick, ah' yes old one that, especially on the tubes. Monsieur! You appear to have a beump on your head.[/Talks in Clouseau-esque way]

 

 

 

Oh, come on, this is a forum, where sociological results record and preserve themselves!

 

 

 

Who among us has not contemplated an experiment?

 

 

 

Though usually, you wouldn't completely destroy all of your results by creating another thread to reveal to the subjects that they were being experimented upon.

[Housepig]

It's not surprising that people reacted badly. Alot of left-wing views seem to be based on something along the lines of "OMG thats realy harsh we have to help them", ectr. Sympathy is never rational. I don't think all mentaly disabled people should be euthanized or anything, but I do think anyone who is destined to merely suffer and achieve nothing should be. I disagree on the "contributions to society" basis for judgement (I try to base my opinions on Utilitarian principles), but I think the bad reactions are just ignorant.

 

 

 

Basicaly, I just want to say how some of the posts on here are pathetic: they're just angry, small-minded, upset responses to a different concept of morality. Why is killing wrong anyway?

[Housepig]

It's not surprising that people reacted badly. Alot of left-wing views seem to be based on something along the lines of "OMG thats realy harsh we have to help them", ectr. Sympathy is never rational. I don't think all mentaly disabled people should be euthanized or anything, but I do think anyone who is destined to merely suffer and achieve nothing should be. I disagree on the "contributions to society" basis for judgement (I try to base my opinions on Utilitarian principles), but I think the bad reactions are just ignorant.

 

 

 

Basicaly, I just want to say how some of the posts on here are pathetic: they're just angry, small-minded, upset responses to a different concept of morality. Why is killing wrong anyway?

 

Sorry if I seem like a brainwashed American, but I was raised to think that "wrong" is when something infringes on the rights of something else, whether or not said rights apply in whatever country.

 

 

 

E.g. Bobby punches Billy, Billy has the right not to be punched. What Bobby did is "wrong" in this scenario.

 

 

 

What if Bobby only punched Billy because Benny was screaming at him to do so while about to press a button to detonate a bomb destroying the 60km^2 of the surrounding area? At least Billy's rights weren't violated.

 

 

 

I appreciate that that was hardly a fair analogy, but basicaly I don't believe in rights. I mean, when you say "whether or not said right applies in whatever country", you seem to be infering that an absolute set of rights exists. If you mean they come from God, that's a bigger argument--but whose set of rights do you chose to apply when judging morality? It's too subjective.

[Kiriyama]

It's not surprising that people reacted badly. Alot of left-wing views seem to be based on something along the lines of "OMG thats realy harsh we have to help them", ectr. Sympathy is never rational. I don't think all mentaly disabled people should be euthanized or anything, but I do think anyone who is destined to merely suffer and achieve nothing should be. I disagree on the "contributions to society" basis for judgement (I try to base my opinions on Utilitarian principles), but I think the bad reactions are just ignorant.

 

 

 

Basicaly, I just want to say how some of the posts on here are pathetic: they're just angry, small-minded, upset responses to a different concept of morality. Why is killing wrong anyway?

 

Sorry if I seem like a brainwashed American, but I was raised to think that "wrong" is when something infringes on the rights of something else, whether or not said rights apply in whatever country.

 

 

 

E.g. Bobby punches Billy, Billy has the right not to be punched. What Bobby did is "wrong" in this scenario.

 

 

 

What if Bobby only punched Billy because Benny was screaming at him to do so while about to press a button to detonate a bomb destroying the 60km^2 of the surrounding area? At least Billy's rights weren't violated.

 

 

 

I appreciate that that was hardly a fair analogy, but basicaly I don't believe in rights. I mean, when you say "whether or not said right applies in whatever country", you seem to be infering that an absolute set of rights exists. If you mean they come from God, that's a bigger argument--but whose set of rights do you chose to apply when judging morality? It's too subjective.

 

 

 

I think in that scenario Billy wouldn't mind being punched if it mean saving a alot of people.

 

 

 

Some pain that'd be over soon against annihilation of alot of people. What would you choose?

[EdgedThesis]

The pain of the current genetically defunct generation culled by the tools of farsighted leaders and, if you were in charge of labels, 'murderers', would allow for the purer gene pool of the future.

 

 

 

One generation's genetically inferior all ash in the chimneys of incinerators, and a path of infinity and bodily clean humans would pierce through time.

 

 

 

Do you see where the lines of morality begin to blur?

 

 

 

Do not speak of objective values.

[Housepig]

It's not surprising that people reacted badly. Alot of left-wing views seem to be based on something along the lines of "OMG thats realy harsh we have to help them", ectr. Sympathy is never rational. I don't think all mentaly disabled people should be euthanized or anything, but I do think anyone who is destined to merely suffer and achieve nothing should be. I disagree on the "contributions to society" basis for judgement (I try to base my opinions on Utilitarian principles), but I think the bad reactions are just ignorant.

 

 

 

Basicaly, I just want to say how some of the posts on here are pathetic: they're just angry, small-minded, upset responses to a different concept of morality. Why is killing wrong anyway?

 

Sorry if I seem like a brainwashed American, but I was raised to think that "wrong" is when something infringes on the rights of something else, whether or not said rights apply in whatever country.

 

 

 

E.g. Bobby punches Billy, Billy has the right not to be punched. What Bobby did is "wrong" in this scenario.

 

 

 

What if Bobby only punched Billy because Benny was screaming at him to do so while about to press a button to detonate a bomb destroying the 60km^2 of the surrounding area? At least Billy's rights weren't violated.

 

 

 

I appreciate that that was hardly a fair analogy, but basicaly I don't believe in rights. I mean, when you say "whether or not said right applies in whatever country", you seem to be infering that an absolute set of rights exists. If you mean they come from God, that's a bigger argument--but whose set of rights do you chose to apply when judging morality? It's too subjective.

 

 

 

I think in that scenario Billy wouldn't mind being punched if it mean saving a alot of people.

 

 

 

Some pain that'd be over soon against annihilation of alot of people. What would you choose?

 

By "rights" I mean a set of things that should be punishable by law.

 

 

 

I also am now having trouble with the concept of "right" and "wrong". 9/11 is wrong to America and probably right to Al Qaeda or whoever whe blamed for it.

 

 

 

So you believe actions which 'should' be punishable by law are wrong? That's like saying "actions which are wrong are wrong because they are wrong". It doesn't make sense--that's why I think Utilitarianism is the best judge of morality.

[Millard]

How far up your own arse are you to think people care about your "Facist" views?

[Kill_Life]

Haha people on here so easy to wind up.

 

 

 

Indeed. So I'm locking this before it gets out of hand.

 

 

 

If you want to discuss right vs left, start a new thread without the provoking or swearing.

 

 

 

Thank you.