Jump to content

labmath2

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    661

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by labmath2

  1. labmath2
    The problem i have with this, very much like the problem i have with the Trayvon Martin incident, is that history is used to decide what happened in a particular incident. Just because someone is Al Capone does not mean they cannot be the victim of a crime. This is why the most important evidence are evidence at the crime scene. If those are inadequate to tell the whole story, then history becomes relevant. So while i understand the videos are about the people, and not necessarily what is likely to have happened, i find it disconcerting. P.S I am pretty sure they claim that the officer was not aware that Michael Brown was a suspect in the robbery.
  2. labmath2
    and are very interesting videos concerning children in a free society.
  3. labmath2
    I see no actual argument in the entire quote blocks. Those are merely stating things that are true. An argument needs a series of connected statements that follow from one another to produce a conclusion that might not be obvious. All three quote blocks are descriptive, not arguments. I would appreciate it if you would point out the arguments because i seem to have missed it.
  4. labmath2
    The similarity he attempts to use, the way i understand it, is true in chemistry, biology and physics. The nature of studying things is that you will come across some that have similar traits. This is why you have multiple levels of classification (groupings which describe certain fundamental natures of the things in the category, e.g particle vs wave, vertebrate vs invertebrate). Not only do these distinctions exist, but you have subcategories and super-categories. which are all based on predefined (descriptive) features of the things in the category. To have the same rigor in philosophy, one only need to describe the categories, based on some predefined (descriptive) feature common to all those within the category. A 2 headed horse has all the qualities of a horse with an additional head. Does that mean its not a horse, it depends, is it a lone horse (the only one with 2 heads in its group) or part of a community of 2 headed horses. If its a lone horse creating a new category is unnecessary as it is merely an anomaly. With philosophy, there exists only two categories, immoral or not immoral (correct me if i am wrong). The two headed horse (sticking with the example) equivalence would be a unique event that is similar to another but with an anomaly. to describe a common event in terms of such comparison is not an argument. The table uses good/evil. The problem with the comparison lies in the sample classification in the table. Mater/energy or reptile/mammal describe a feature of the thing , good/evil must also be descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) to be considered scientifically valid. What quality (observable) of a thing deems it good, what quality deems it evil? If good is compatible with UPb and evil is incompatible, then the grey area is inconclusive, no need to fog with the "philosophy is like biology as opposed to physics" line. That argument (statement) fogs the logic. One can merely state that the thing is neither compatible nor incompatible with UPB.
  5. labmath2
    I have seen a few instances of a statement similar to this: Moral philosophy is not like physical science, it is more like biological science. This is not an argument. A better answer would be to say, this area still needs clarification but it does not render the main theory false. If anyone else has seen any non argument feel free to point them out. PS. Physical science also has moments when they are just as imprecise (Pluto was finally changed to dwarf planet when they discovered it was not the only body that displayed those eccentric characteristics).
  6. labmath2
    good point
  7. labmath2
    To be honest, i not completely convinced by argument for why psychological crimes (the mafia insisting you pay them or an accident might ensue, misinformation that result in bad decisions) with no immediate danger to people can be considered coercion. Those types of crimes require participation of the victim (voluntary in some sense). Someone burning down your store is still a crime (you are not obligated to comply to demands based on the threat to burn down your store at some future time). Or fraud where you have opportunity to appraise the information or change the contract to be contingent on the information being accurate. I would appreciate articles or podcasts about these types of situations. I use crime to mean you can forcefully act in prevention or demand restitution for the act.
  8. labmath2
    What do you guys think about libel or defamation laws? I think most if not everyone will agree that yelling fire in a crowded theater should be considered a crime. What about intentionally lying about someone in a way that affects their livelihood? I am thorn on this. I am more on the side of no speech crime unless it creates immediate danger to people.
  9. labmath2
    some of those links do not work like Where Free Market Economists Go Wrong by Sheldon Richman and Is Capitalism Something Good? by Sheldon Richman.
  10. labmath2
    At least he is consistent. He only cares about himself and convincing others to act in his self interest is part of that.
  11. labmath2
    This is interesting. Most of my objection to the logic in UPB is because when i simplify it, it simplifies to "it violates UPB therefore its immoral." What immoral means in any context is that it violates UPB.
  12. labmath2
    My understanding of each point. 1. Depends on the society and what standards they set for aggression 2. Depends on common sense as most people will not see breaking into someone's apartment to avoid falling to your death terribly bad. 3. Risk one is a bit tricky, i think it gets resolved by cultural trends 4. The fraud situation speaks to a much broader issue of affecting ones actions without actually using physical force. I have always had problem with the idea that once you have a gun to your head you cannot choose even though technically they have not physically harmed you yet. It speaks to one's perceived notion of danger, threat, or violation of property right, which is very vague. 5. Presumes everyone agrees to one set of property rights and is aware of the state of every property they interact with. 6. Children are always a pain in the butt.
  13. labmath2
    In order for a scientist to give you an answer, you have to ask him a question. In order for a philosopher to give you an answer, he has to ask himself a question.
  14. labmath2
    read the first part of this Wikipedia entry explaining what happened in the 20th century that is the ongoing war between Hamas and Israel today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War It seems even the UN was part of the problem.
  15. labmath2
    Should things like buying goods from a thief or watching child porn be illegal? People engaged in these actions are voluntarily doing so, even though they are making immoral action by the people they engage with lucrative.
  16. labmath2
    This period.
  17. labmath2
    Now i understand. You are right, you did nothing wrong. All the Palestinians now have to do is forcefully take land from Israelis, pass it on to their kids or sell it, and those people will have moral claim to it. I am willing to accept that most Israelis did nothing wrong, but i have to also be willing to accept most Palestinians did nothing wrong. If you think its fine to kill innocent on the Palestinian side, then it is certainly fine for Hamas to kill innocent on the Israeli side.
  18. labmath2
    This is why i think history is necessary. I do not know anyone that would deny that Israel forcefully took areas that were occupied by Palestinians. To say that those who had their property taken from them should just accept the way things are now is unreasonable. Unless you think Israelis were justified in forcefully taking land from Palestinians then it is really hard to make the case that Hamas is completely responsible. You need to look at the history.
  19. labmath2
    May i ask why you think people think Israelis are more barbaric? And what do you think the challenge will accomplish? How much of the history of what happened and is currently happening are you familiar with and what is your take on the situation? Just to clarify, i do not think anyone think Israelis are completely responsible for the situation, neither do people think Hamas is a righteous organization.
  20. labmath2
    If some one starts shooting in the middle of a crowd and is attempting to kill you, is it moral on your part to fire at him knowing you are very likely to hit one of the bystanders? I do not think anyone would say the shooter is excused for hiding in a crowd, but i think we can all agree the shooter is not a model of morality. The important part is your reaction. If you do fire into the crowd and kill 3 others in addition to the shooter, should there be consequences to you by the family members of the innocent bystanders?
  21. labmath2
    Going by people does not make this situation any easier to understand, in fact it only makes it harder. How many people can we actually point to as initiators of force? I am sure if you ask members of Hamas and Israel's military they will all claim to be acting in self defense/defense of others. The second part is what constitutes defense? At what point does defense become offense?
  22. labmath2
    I ask the question because self defense argument requires we have full understanding of how the situation escalated to its current state. Maybe Israel is acting in self defense, or maybe they initiated and all these is just fallout of that initial initiation of violence. I do not know so i was hoping someone with a little more knowledge of the situation could enlighten us.
  23. labmath2
    I am certainly no history or foreign policy expert, but isn't Israel now occupying what used to be Palestinian territory?
  24. labmath2
    I saw a forum where someone people discuss leaving as an option and wondered if others have considered it here. http://www.dailypaul.com/320244/should-you-leave-the-usa?page=1
  25. labmath2
    Most of his arguments are distinctions without differences. All the things that are true for the state could be true for any other organization (corporation). The difference is in the capital. There is competition now (multiple countries) and there will always be cost of changing organization. To me the closest analogy to government is landlord and tenant. If the tenant dislikes his/her landlord, he can certainly object and even try to persuade the landlord, but he/she can also find a new place. The reality is that most of us do not want to move unless something really bad happens. As long as government as an organization can pass all organizational cost back on the citizens and there is imperfect information, voting and checks and balances and all other systems to prevent abuse is all just a ruse.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept