The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Eminence
The proper wording would be "not everything is subjective." Taken literally, you're saying that nothing is subjective.

It means the same thing Faunus. Everything is not subjective asserts there are things that are universal.

And by whom? G-d, the bible, society, you choose. You walk a dangerous path of reasoning with this relativism. You've obviously claimed you weren't a moral relativism on more than one occasion, so I'm still trying to understand what your actual views are.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It means the same thing Faunus. Everything is not subjective asserts there are things that are universal.

And by whom? G-d, the bible,

society,

you choose. You walk a dangerous path of reasoning with this relativism. You've obviously claimed you weren't a moral relativism on more than one occasion, so I'm still trying to understand what your actual views are.

And yesterday was weird; I was using relativism and subjectivity interchangeably, when the former apparently has an absolutist connotation about it. I obviously think my views are better than yours - which is why they are my views - but I acknowledge that technically the absence of a truly universal moral authority means that it's all up to individual interpretation.

That probably came off as convoluted, too. This subject sucks.

Originally posted by Eminence

Different societies often have different moral values. People in Asia treat the elderly with reverence. Here? Not so much.

That there aren't "universal" moral truths because there isn't anyone in a position to dictate to others exactly what is right and wrong.

And yesterday was weird; I was using relativism and subjectivity interchangeably, when the former apparently has an absolutist connotation about it. I obviously think my views are better than yours - which is why they are my views - but I acknowledge that technically the absence of a truly universal moral authority means that it's all up to individual interpretation.

That probably came off as convoluted, too. This subject sucks. [/B]

Originally posted by Gideon
My contention is that there are certain understandings that are absolute. Murder is wrong, rape is wrong, et cetera. Your outlook makes room for the possibility that they may not be.

Originally posted by Gideon
What?

No... lol. Nebaris, Nai, Janus, Illustrious, and Deception still think that the ancient Sith are more powerful than Sidious, despite the fact that I've rubbed their faces in every canon statement and shred of evidence in existence.

Does that mean that he's not the most powerful simply because they think he's not?

Mr. E...Have you forgotten to take your pills again?

Poor bloke. Six hours without medicine and his brain turns into a pulpy mass that makes him believe he's more than a pubescent teenager that couldn't find "logical reasoning" if you would maroon him right next to Plato's Academy. *sigh*

Leland Chee, when asked directly, who the most powerful Sith is (in terms of force abilities) replied that LFL will never hand come up with power charts - Gideon claims to have found those things. Does somebody spot the error?

My contention is that there are certain understandings that are absolute. Murder is wrong, rape is wrong, et cetera. Your outlook makes room for the possibility that they may not be.

Welcome to the Kindergarten of Philosophy. There are no moral absolutes because moral is a human concept and humans are prone to error and deceived by emotion.

Deontological ethics will tell you that all that matters to determine if a deed is right or wrong is your motivation or intention. You can have a good intention for the action of killing people. Consequentalists and teleologists will tell you that, if the outcome of a action is good, the action itself can be justified. Even Murder can be beneficial for a society (and certainly for an individual).

What you come up here with is moral absolutism. You try to judge actions devoid of the context of an act. Not entirely surprising: That's your approach to almost everything - and it is the approach of a child that needs absolutes because it is incapable of encorporate exclusions to its view on the world.

Yet that kind of system fails in reality every day of the week. Why? Because, technically, you aren't allowed to commit an act that you perceive as being wrong, regardless of circumstances. So if you define lying as wrong, and an axe-murderer asks in which rooms of your house your siblings and parents, that he is going to kill, are sleeping, you will have to tell him the truth. You can see that line of thought leads to morale dilemma in the matter of seconds. When you say killing people is wrong, you have to accept of getting killed even if you could prevent it by killing the guy that wanted to murder you in the first place. Hell...you couldn't even hurt somebody like that, if you consider it wrong to hurt people.

And don't even try to argue that by citing that killing or hurting somebody in an act of self-defense isn't the same as murdering or hurting somebody for no reason - because that would unmask you as being a moral relativist yourself. A being that judges actions based on context...

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which AGAIN, doesn't mean every moral value is subjective. Asserting that would AGAIN be asserting that Hitler and Stalin weren't wrong.

Yes, there are. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Theft is wrong. The ONLY justifications (weak) for these values include skewed versions of ancient texts, or political agendas.

Bullshit. you think my views are wrong because either i'm a religious nut, or not as logical as you.

Don't try to play it off that you'll allow me to have my interpretation.

IF you think I'm wrong which you do and have, say it. Just like in any star wars argument.

Because you are arguing what you've been taught.

You can't tell me that you live your life thinking there are no goods and evils, rights and wrongs, every culture and every value is equal, and nothing is better. We both know YOU don't really believe that.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which is why your ridiculous nonsense is the subject of continuous ridicule in this thread. Nobody sane or rational would believe in that hilarious hippie utopia. Not even any of the liberals i've met because they aren't so ignorant or naive. You should carve out a desert island for yourself because your "utopia" will never exist.

Your version of a utopia is where every single person conforms to the Bible and your version of God; a land of conformity and a lack of freedom. My personal utopia (note: MY personal utopia, not the 'universal utopia'😉 is where people are capable of exercising their right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness without fear of conservative Bible-thumpers (that's you!) attempting to force their ideals of decency and morality upon them.

And guess what? Prostitution, homosexuality, any so-called 'deviant' sexual act that does not directly harm anyone (such as an orgy), drug use, profanities, depictions of violence in the media... the immorality of these things cannot be substantiated as being anything more than subjective standards. The fact that conservatives view these things as wrong has everything to do with religion. They see the Bible as absolute truth, despite the fact that it cannot be substantiated as being anything more than the ramblings of men who lived thousands of years ago.

You want to believe in the Bible? Fine. You want to pray? Fine. You think drugs and non-traditional sexuality to be immoral? Then don't do them. Don't force your subjective ideology upon others.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And way to rationalize the holocaust, jackass. By your definition, if the extermination was confined to ONLY Germany, it would be ok. By that same logic, Stalin was justified in murdering 22 million of his fellow Russians because it was confined to his country. Nice "logic".

Except it would not have been 'okay'. It would simply have been just that: an action. We do not agree with it and see it as inhumane and barbaric. They felt it was a method of exercising purity, a moral action necessary in the perfect society.

If the world was taken over by the Soviet Union or the Nazis, we'd be seeing our ideals of freedom and choice be perceived as negative, while the above mentioned 'Barbarism' be seen as good. Do you understand?

I think that the best version of the world is when people reach a compromise between all existing moralities, instead of letting one crush the other. That means that there is a place in the world for the Nazi ideology, or other 'radical' ones. We simply must reconcile their interests with the interests of the people they harm. In the Holocaust, we should have offered to give Jews haven. By doing so, we would have invalidated the Nazi's beliefs of Jews being seen as the evil of the world and we would have prevented the Holocaust from launching. The moment it started happening, we should have continued to do the same- perhaps exercise protectionism of some sort, in addition, but only that. Utilizing military power in order to force Nazi Germany to conform to out standards of humanity would have caused countless German deaths. It could be avoided.

If the Soviet Union was not, ultimately, supported by the majority of people within it, it would not have survived, as you can see by its eventual collapse. We can offer different options and alternatives to 'savages'; but ultimately, progression must come from them and must not be forced upon them.

Originally posted by Nai
Leland Chee, when asked directly, who the most powerful Sith is (in terms of force abilities) replied that LFL will never hand come up with power charts - Gideon claims to have found those things. Does somebody spot the error

They do all the time.

It's canon that Yoda is more powerful than Mace Windu, that Count Dooku is more powerful than Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker circa Attack of the Clones, that Marka Ragnos was more powerful than Naga Sadow or Ludo Kressh, and that the Emperor is more powerful than Darth Vader.

So, the truth to the matter is that LFL creates power charts all the time. The whole of the two trilogies is based on them, I'm afraid.

Now, that's enough out of you, Nai. We don't need another demonstration of your bias or inability to think.

(Bet you love how I turned that quote against you, don't you?)

Silence, pubescent teenager.

Originally posted by Eminence
Silence, pubescent teenager.

Hush.

I'm currently reminding Nai why I'm better than he is. I quoted my final statement to you yesterday so you could address it, pl0x.

Originally posted by Eminence
[B]No, it would mean that there are people who think they weren't wrong. Like Hitler and Stalin. They clearly don't share my values.

I don't think religious people are "nuts" or "retarded," DS; I simply find arguments based on faith but pertaining to the real world to be impossible to swallow. Gays can't marry because... why, again?

We're not at that point, still, are we?

DS is right; the fact that people have different opinions on a particular subject doesn't mean that all of them are valid. There are whackjobs in the world who truly believe, from the bottom of their annoying little hearts, that Adolf Hitler was the greatest human in history for his destruction of the vile and wretched Jews.

The fact that morons out there believe that crap does not make it valid or worthy of consideration.

Edit: And here, DS is wrong. Not too long ago, DS, the concept of marriage was that the man was dominant over the woman completely. We sure as hell revamped that outlook when the time came. Don't cite tradition as a means of licensing bigotry.

Originally posted by Gideon
They do all the time.

No. They don't. They come up with sources that can be interpreted in an attempt to determine which individual out of two would be more powerful. If they'd come up with absolutes, you wouldn't see any argument happening here.

It's canon that Yoda is more powerful than Mace Windu

Give me the source that has an omniscient entety stating "Yoda is more powerful than Mace Windu". You won't find such a source.

, that Count Dooku is more powerful than Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker circa Attack of the Clones,

Because he defeated them in actual combat? By this logic, Mace Windu is superior to RotS Sidious.

that Marka Ragnos was more powerful than Naga Sadow or Ludo Kressh and that the Emperor is more powerful than Darth Vader.

The latest example is the only one where you have an absolute, which is only possible, because the SW franchise assumes Lucas own word as absolute canon - and Lucas said that Vader is 80 % as powerful as Sidious.

And here you have the only working example of absolute in the SW Universe: The word of George Lucas himself is absolute canon. And even that would be relative - because Lucas can change his opinion.

So, the truth to the matter is that LFL creates power charts all the time. The whole of the two trilogies is based on them, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid: You're wrong. Proof: Every single retcon an contradictionary evidence that pops up in the entire SW franchise.

Now, that's enough out of you, Nai. We don't need another demonstration of your bias or inability to think.

(Bet you love how I turned that quote against you, don't you?)

Gideon. Stop using the majestic plural. It makes you look more stupid than you really are - a feat that borders on the impossible.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Your version of a utopia is where every single person conforms to the Bible and your version of God; a land of conformity and a lack of freedom. My personal utopia (note: MY personal utopia, not the 'universal utopia'😉 is where people are capable of exercising their right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness without fear of conservative Bible-thumpers (that's you!) attempting to force their ideals of decency and morality upon them.

If the Soviet Union was not, ultimately, supported by the majority of people within it, it would not have survived, as you can see by its eventual collapse. We can offer different options and alternatives to 'savages'; but ultimately, progression must come from them and must not be forced upon them.

Apparently you know nothing of the Soviet Union, which was run by Stalin and his party members. Guess who was the most oppressed in the Soviet Union? Not Jews, Christians. You've shown me that you understand nothing about the world you're living in.

Originally posted by Gideon
Edit: And here, DS is wrong. Not too long ago, DS, the concept of marriage was that the man was dominant over the woman completely. We sure as hell revamped that outlook when the time came. Don't cite tradition as a means of licensing bigotry. [/B]

This is where we disagree but it's what I believe and I am not necessarily right. I just don't want our society to start changing the laws for everybody for the reason that I came to this country. To follow its laws, not to change them for my benefit. I don't know if that sounds logical right now but I haven't really thought about this outside of religion and the sanctity of marriage. But give me a good reason why gay marriages should exist, instead of civil unions.

Wow Nai so you want sources stating exactly that character X is more powerful than character Y, instead of being able to logically deduce as much. The fact that anything Lucas said is absolute, destroys your argument. Because if lucas changes his word (which isn't often), then THAT word becomes absolute. That means there's no contention to what Lucas says. Not everything is subjective. Luke Skywalker is the most powerful force user in the sw mythos. Sidious can defeat Kenobi. Mace can defeat Bandon. Those are all absolutes. The fact that you or someone more ignorant would argue against them doesn't make them any less accurate.

I've made a thread for the Star Wars debate in the EU section, Nai and DS. Go there to continue it. I don't want to interrupt the morality debate here.

Marriage is supposed to represent the pinnacle of love between two parties. It has evolved from an almost tyrannical ownership on the man's behalf to the woman married to him, why can it not be changed again? Because marriage is the last bulwark against the homosexual tide?

I'm all for certain moral absolutes, but I'm not a proponent of bigotry unless it's against morons (and by that, I mean those with God-given intelligence who simply choose to be obstinate [Nai?]).

Believe me, I have moderate homophobia, but I don't let my irrational fear of a person's lifestyle (particularly when it is done out of love) allow me to endorse a blanket ban denying them the rights we enjoy. Particularly when we heterosexuals **** up the concept of marriage every day in this country, as the 50% divorce rate testifies to.

Originally posted by Gideon
I've made a thread for the Star Wars debate in the EU section, Nai and DS. Go there to continue it. I don't want to interrupt the morality debate here.

Marriage is supposed to represent the pinnacle of love between two parties. It has evolved from an almost tyrannical ownership on the man's behalf to the woman married to him, why can it not be changed again? Because marriage is the last bulwark against the homosexual tide?

I'm all for certain moral absolutes, but I'm not a proponent of bigotry unless it's against morons (and by that, I mean those with God-given intelligence who simply choose to be obstinate [Nai?]).

Believe me, I have moderate homophobia, but I don't let my irrational fear of a person's lifestyle (particularly when it is done out of love) allow me to endorse a blanket ban denying them the rights we enjoy. Particularly when we heterosexuals **** up the concept of marriage every day in this country, as the 50% divorce rate testifies to.

Good idea, this is a different subject to debate elsewhere.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which is as ridiculous an assertion (if not more)that there is a higher being. There are universal rights and wrongs. We've proven some of them. The ability to make an excuse for them does NOT equate to it being subjective, or justifiable.

I'm going to tell you a tale about a guy named Julius Caesar, a dude you have probably heard of. During the Gallic Wars, he sacked a Gallic town called Avaricum. Forty thousand people lived in Avaricum, his men killed them all. About eight hundred escaped alive who where then most likely sold in slavery. So tell me, do you think the Romans got pissed at Caesar because he was now responsible for the murder of 40,000 people? Hell, in Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War, he even says how he intentionally let his men kill everyone to give them a way to get out their frustrations.

Guess what? Rome considered him a hero, so what if he killed a bunch of Gauls? No one cared. Where the Romans wrong to think this way? Or perhaps that is simply how their society developed and they had a completely different set of morals than most modern day society does.

Or hell, Genghis Khan is a good example. He's a folk hero in Mongolia. A modern day hero to the Mongolians, a man who potentially murdered 40 million people on his trek across Asia. Are the Mongolians wrong to revere him? Have they violated the "universal" truth that you keep blabbing on about?

Humanity is littered with so many different cultures and ethic beliefs, that to say that there are universal truths, is simply wrong, unless you are prepared to say that all those cultures are wrong.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Humanity is littered with so many different cultures and ethic beliefs, that to say that there are universal truths, is simply wrong, unless you are prepared to say that all those cultures are wrong.

That would require further analysis, but I'll say it: should a people honor an aggrandized butcher with no argument for 'the greater good' in mind, then I'd be perfectly content with declaring them wrong.