Human rights and Vivaldi
-
@JohnConnorBear As an actual student of the latest 3000 years of philosophy, I know enough to realize that objective demonstration of good and evil are the only reliable measures, and that subjective opinions and what "we are supposed to do" lack final authority. The universe passes final judgment on the merit of all decisions. Our books, philosophies, affinities and ideologies are moot in that respect.
That said, I lay no claim to knowledge of the ultimate truths of things - I only claim that irrespective of our opinions in the "now" concerning what's right, we may learn later that we were wrong. It is the inability to learn whether something was wrong that is what's really dangerous.
-
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
- I was told this forum is for technical support.
Actually, you were told it's mainly for technical support. I remember because I said that. Plus if you go here and compare the number of threads/posts in each category, then you'll see what I'm talking about.
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
You can "applaude" whatever cause you like or agree, problem is I am forced to "applaude" too, or else.
I'm glad you've said that about yourself specifically because certainly, it's not the impression that I've been getting. In my experience, it was always possible for someone to politely refuse to support a cause that they didn't believe in. And even if the other party reacts with anger, it's their fault, not yours.
Of course, if your "beliefs" consist of considering other people as being worse because (for example) they're from this specific area of the country or they're from this specific background, etc. then you might find yourself in a lot of trouble, especially if you express them publicly. That really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
The fact is, people are even willing to make a lot of effort sometimes, in order to find something against a person they have a problem with. It reminds me of this quote: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." (I wish I could remember where I heard this - it was recently, but nvm).
Generally, I think you've got a few valid points, but you're also overexaggerating certain things - and in a big way. Just because you find some of the current views standing in opposition to your personal beliefs does not necessarily mean that it's the end of the world or that the dark ages are upon us...
-
@JohnConnorBear I can't see how one has to do anything with the other. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that, to help me understand what you mean?
-
I am amazed at the philosophical path this thread is taking, although the background is not so complicated, it is not good or bad/evil in the center, concepts that can be very relative.
The core of the issue is that you cannot remain neutral when choosing between coexistence or discrimination and violence. It is about nature itself, and neutrality and disinterest can lead to self-destruction.
The vast majority of people are good people, but the disinterest and neutrality of injustice, hatred, violence and racism is often exploited by those who are not so good, dragging many who simply lack their own criteria .
This is why the world is as it is.
We should have learned from the past, from wars, genocides and miseries that are the direct cause of the thoughts 'it doesn't matter to me, it won't touch me'. -
@JohnConnorBear That you see the two quoted lines as contradictory reveals a flaw in your thinking. You are reading, or assuming, something that is not written there.
Is it your belief that my stating good and evil exist means that somehow a person or persons are necessarily in possession of the knowledge of what things are or are not good and evil? That if you do what you "know" to be good today, it's impossible for subsequent events to prove you wrong? If I were to state that perfect knowledge of good and evil is possible, I think I could probably be proved wrong about that - as it would require impossible knowledge - ie, perfect knowledge of the future.
Then, too, a thing may be good for its time, and bad for a future time. Steam and internal combustion provided energy that permitted the advancement of technology. Were they a good way to power things when they came into being? Absolutely. The best means available at the time? Undeniably. Do they remain the best ways to provide energy for further human advancement? Highly debatable. So when an act or decision is taken is relevant as well. The totality of circumstances rules.
This is why, the less of the totality of circumstances a person is able to appreciate, the greater the likelihood that they will, knowing or unknowing, do evil. It's easy to do evil if your view is so limited that it looks good to you.
-
@JohnConnorBear What does God have to do with it? Does God have something to do with not punching babies in the nose, with letting a Down Syndrome possessor to earn a living? Who put "God" into this discussion?
-
@JohnConnorBear Oh yes, I was waiting for the old, classic running-out-of-argument excuse in the spirit of "you wouldn't understand".
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
All you need is the famous "pair of boots and an uniform", aka the power of sending me one of those nice threats of banning in name of the "Code of Conduct".
This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to shift focus away from the initial point. As if I ever "threatened" anyone to ban them for violating the CoC (spoiler: I didn't). But that would be expected from someone who's trying to hide their lack of reasonable counterarguments by focusing on the other person or introducing other cheap eristic arguments instead.
It's quite easy to throw accusations, isn't it? But when it comes to providing some reason, suddenly it turns out to be a thing the other party wouldn't understand anyway, huh? I'm sorry, but this is some twisted logic to me...
-
@JohnConnorBear , if there had been no people who stood up against violence and discrimination, today you may still have black slaves at our disposal, Australian Aborigines were still considered by the English as local fauna (even in the 70s of the last century ). We still lived in a feudal system with internet only for the wealthy.
We move forward, but slowly, why many think 'I don't care, as long as it's not my turn", but when it's your turn, it's too late -
@JohnConnorBear I'll elaborate:
Healthy oceans support the life cycle of all living things, and specifically provide mankind with food and breathable atmosphere.This would seem a good thing.
Being able to feed 30 people from an acre that formerly only supported 3 people would seem a good thing.
However, fertilizer runoff into the oceans causes dead zones and the use of poisons against weeds is causing cancer.
Can we simply pass a law that says "no fertilizer runoff and no poisons against weeds?" This would be seen as an evil against farming and farmers, and would reduce our food output below optimum levels, possibly.
So, what's good? Within whose zone of appreciation? Chemical companies, who employ thousands, would find such a law to be evil as well.
That said, are there methods that would allow that same acre of land to feed 25, without poisoning people and the planet? Could we teach such methods to our farmers? Would this not be a greater "good" than the pure numerical value of feeding 30 people? How broad a view can we see? How far into the future can we predict? The broader, the farther, the better our ability to evaluate "good."
You would not argue that there is no such thing as up and down, light and dark. They are real things. They are understood within the totality of circumstances. But to deny they exist, or to claim their existence depends on dogma would be nonsense.
-
@JohnConnorBear I'm not going to discuss the philosophical concepts as it's not something that I'm particularly interested in at this moment, but the fact that you see in other people's comments something that is not there is blatantly obvious. And I'm not talking about this thread only.
Unfortunately, it's something that I see in a lot of people. Making wild assumptions based on a few words that somebody has said. It's not being insightful, it's just ignorance.
-
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
I am the only here who wrote something meaningful.
I, for one, disagree. But that this reflects your belief speaks volumes.
-
Thank goodness the world always burns elsewhere
-
@JohnConnorBear They are conditions/values that have actual independent relevance independent of prescribed value judgments.
The "asteroid" argument is reductive and nihilistic, rendering the entirety of human existence futile. One can always find a frame of reference which nullifies all value judgments - such as mechanistic determinism (you know, free will is an illusion, all action is determined by mechanical and chemical reactions to reactions to reactions ad infinitum back to the Big Bang) or "what if the sun went nova tomorrow - what would it matter?"
I prefer (and this is my conscious preference) to approach life as though will, intent and purpose meant something. This renders human action meaningful, and makes the evaluation of good and evil, right and wrong relevant to human existence. If we can't tell which is the "better" way to decide, then why decide at all? Why think? Why breathe? Why exist? Certainly not because some deity said so.
I knew early on that you were going to argue against population growth (and for preventing human deaths as being a potential evil). It's the only kind of view of humanity that would be consistent with your other positions.
-
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
I don't need any "counterarguments", I am the only here who wrote something meaningful. For your part, you just wrote I am a sort of freak with aluminium foil on his head who imagines conspiracy theories, which is not much of an "argument".
I find it so funny, that I'm quoting it just in case you'd decide to edit/delete your post or to earn yourself that ban, that you seem so passionate about. And I think that you couldn't agree more with what I just said than by saying the above. You've literally proved that my suspicions were not groundless.
Plus it shows how willing you are to put words in somebody's mouth once you decide that that's gonna work in your favor (or at least it seems that way). After all, it's easier to fight an argument that you yourself made out of somebody's words (which were first taken out of context or distorted in some other way).
To be clear: I have never said nor suggested anything that you're accusing me of saying. I don't even know where did you get that idea from, other than misinterpreting my words in an extreme way.
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
Sorry if I don't take your word about what is "blatantly obvious".
Sure, no problem. I didn't take your word for what I "haven't understood" either.
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
You know, we "lot of (stupid) people" who make wild assumptions because we are ignorant.
Now tell me, what If I get offended by your comment?I merely tried to state a fact about people in general - if they make assumptions without checking the facts, it's ignorance. I'm not saying that you're ignorant, because I don't know you and that would be a shameless ignorance on my part (as well as hypocrisy).
But on the other hand, I can't deny that you have misinterpreted mine (and other folks') comments here and there (and not in our favor either), so I've decided to point this out. It's hard to have a rational discussion if somebody is constantly making things up.
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
Do you receive a threat like us ignorants?
I guess it depends on how you define "threat".
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
since you aren't interested
I said: "at this moment". Don't omit the details. And the reason is that I'm logging off soon.
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
may I suggest you could spend your time otherwise?
That's what I'm going to do right now, but I find this discussion quite entertaining, so please allow me to come back here later today and at least continue to read it. I'd like to "not understand" a few more posts of yours or others'. It's been quite interesting so far.
-
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
@pafflick
You know what? The way you write shows you are a moderator here. It shows not in a good way.The way you are writing here implies an attempt at character assassination. Your attempt to assassinate pafflick's character is wholly irrelevant (mod or not, they are a user contributing to discussion), and does absolutely nothing to further your argument, engage in philosophical debate or clarify your points.
It only serves to increase negativity.
Why not focus on the discussion and engage in the state of play, rather than the players?
@JohnConnorBear said in Human rights and Vivaldi:
@Catweazle
I am amazed by the fact that you seem to believe the world has been created 10 days ago and everything is brand new. Violence, you say? Like the two sons of Adam, the good one being killed by his brother Cain?Where do you see "neutrality"? In the original thread the lady/guy was complaining about the picture in the blog post about a new feature of Vivaldi browser. She/he was not "neutral", otherwise she/he would not complain.
That "neutrality" thing is just a fiction, a lie. What the lady/guy wants is Vivaldi to not support the "anti-racist" movement and used the "Vivaldi should not take position" as an excuse.
But that is not what I wrote. I wrote that the picture is good marketing and P.R. because nowadays there is NO CHANCE anybody can be "pro-racist", unless she/he wants to commit professional and personal suicide.
Again, do you want to keep pretending otherwise? It is not about "racism" only, it is about everything about being "politically correct", let say I don't know, plastics. Do you think Vivaldi could publish an official post with "plastic is good, plastics is healthy" while every single "media" of the "western world" is campaigning against plastics? To not mention the example I gave you about the usual "gender equality" or "no gender" topic, with all the derivatives like gay marriage and so on.
Besides the example of Eich, I have just recalled a business man from here whose family owns a big company producing pasta. One day he said his company aimed the marketing to "traditional families" because of their dining habits then consuming habits. His speech provoked the reaction of the gay community worldwide, they boycotted pasta from the said company so the man was forced to apologize and to make advertisement including gay families. I don't care much but the point is THE OPPOSITE IS UNTHINKABLE. Imagine if some community boycots some company because of gays. That would be "evil", "fascist" or whatever.
Everything is one-directional and somebody here is trying to sell me the idea that this is by God's design, see the post about "good vs evil".
How is a god relevant to the debate? Nobody has mentioned a god until you inserted it here
-
@pafflick I agree with you, it's incredibly unfortunate that some people believe that engaging (perhaps one might call it disengaging) in a debate in this way helps to nurture a reasonable, meaningful and constructive discussion that is relevant to the topic.
-
A few years ago I helped an elderly lady, who fell in one of these escalators in a shopping center. There were people around taking photos as the poor lady tried to get up with her feet forward on the staircase that went up when I arrived.
This is what I mean, looking and TAKING PICTURES instead of helping, this is this 'neutrality' and indifference that I repudiate and has nothing to do with politics or with good or evil, but with ourselves. -
@Catweazle I agree, except that I take it as having everything to do with good and evil (though nothing to do with politics). Good and evil are not a score being kept on one's life. They are not stickers on a calendar to look back on and make some kind of evaluation. They simply are what they are. A hot day is a hot day, not a "test" for one to pass or fail. It's just a hot day. A good act is a good act. No one may know of it, or care. But its impact is what it is, and both the good and the evil we do lives after us, whether we are judged for it or not. If we clean up a river, the river is clean. Opinions on its purity are irrelevant. If we save a species from extinction, its living members simply survive. No one need give us a medal or let us into heaven on account of it.
-
@Catweazle And why should we care that the good and evil we do lives after us? Well for my part, it concerns my progeny, as is only the natural instinct of humankind. They will inherit the world I leave - in fact to a degree, they are already living in it. And I care about their happiness, their success, their survival potential. Their very existence is part of the point of my existence. And so, if I can, I do good for them. I care about the future. I don't have to - but I do.
-
@Ayespy , a change always has to start from ourselves and then in our environment. Certainly good or bad / evil, as I said before, are relative concepts, it is rather about acting as what we are, a social species, where for pure survival of ourselves, we have to keep in mind that our actions sooner or later It will fall on ourselves.
This is why we have to recover a capacity that we have gradually replaced by technology: empathy and our own criteria.
Not having them makes us simple herd animals, who follow a leader and/or we believe what the nice man says in the news.