The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[OccultHawk]

Why do you think anti semitism is ok?

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Not really because 'harm' and 'help' in the context of humanity is more complicated than you make it to be. I'm not willing to die on the hill of those two things being the only things but you really have done a **** job of convincing me otherwise. Really, I'm just rejecting the idea that morality is a purely subjective idea built by culture when I think it's more than just what we've been taught.

you aren't looking to be convinced. All you've done is dodge points, try to muddy the waters, and try to hide behind vauge allusions that suffering or harm are 'more nuaced' I.e. trying to expand the definition of those words to include whatever is needed to maintain your framework.

Have you ever read Bentham? This is not exactly a new topic/idea.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Just remember he's trying to bring this back to a traditionalist American view where it's okay to be a neoliberal watching CNN on TV. He hates Hillary Clinton but he really is Hillary Clinton.

Nah, Hillary is more hawkish than I am. Just because I think we're better off being the top super power doesn't mean every war is worth it. There have been plenty of blunders we could've avoided with little consequence.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

you aren't looking to be convinced. All you've done is dodge points, try to muddy the waters, and try to hide behind vauge allusions that suffering or harm are 'more nuaced' I.e. trying to expand the definition of those words to include whatever is needed to maintain your framework.

Have you ever read Bentham? This is not exactly a new topic/idea.

No, I actually haven't. I've completely explained everything and you just reject it in an attempt to over simplify things because nuance is something you can't seem to grasp.

You did the same exact **** with the IQ test debate.

Let me clarify. I would not kill a homeless person if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented if they had the ability to do it because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering that isn't necessary. Me not killing him doesn't make me responsible what so ever for his continued suffering because I didn't cause it and he is not dependent on my choice to end his own suffering. In the event where he would be dependent on me, such as assisted suicide or euthanasia, I would because at that point I'd be directly responsible for his prolonged suffering.

I've already said this but for ****s sake you're stubborn in wanting to hear it.

Also, as I've already explained but you don't want to listen, it's different than the kill a child to save 100 scenario because in that instance I know that they are dependent on my choice.

Nothing muddied, clear as day.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Let me clarify. I would not kill a homeless person if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented if they had the ability to do it because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering that isn't necessary.

-_-

Do you see a problem here?

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

-_-

Do you see a problem here?

There is none, you just have a hard time understanding as usual.

[jwb]

This is where we're having a fundamental disconnect

Let me clarify. I would not kill a homeless person if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented if they had the ability to do it because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering that isn't necessary

the premise is that killing him will definitely lead to less suffering. So saying you will cause unnecessary suffering as the reason not to do it is going back on the premise once again.

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

1) I would not kill a homeless person
2) if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented
3) if they had the ability to do it
4) because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering

1) Cool. Me neither.
2) Can you quantify 'prevented'? Prevented what? More suffering? How much more? What kind? Bullet to the brain or death by 1,000 cuts?
3) Ability to kill themselves?
4) I robbed my kid of the choice of running into the street. Did they suffer?

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

This is where we're having a fundamental disconnect

the premise is that killing him will definitely lead to less suffering. So saying you will cause unnecessary suffering as the reason not to do it is going back on the premise once again.

It's not going back on the premise because you're ignoring the part where I said I would if they were dependent on my choice.

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

1) Cool. Me neither.
2) Can you quantify 'prevented'? Prevented what? More suffering? How much more? What kind? Bullet to the brain or death by 1,000 cuts?
3) Ability to kill themselves?
4) I robbed my kid of the choice of running into the street. Did they suffer?

2) Read the scenario JWB cooked up and you'll get it.

3) Yes.

4) But that's different because your child's lack of awareness makes them dependent on you. Euthanasia would also be robbing somebody of choice but that person lacks the ability to decide there for they are dependent on me to decide for them and I already support that.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

It's not going back on the premise because you're ignoring the part where I said I would if they were dependent on my choice.

It is going back on the premise, because you're still insisting it will cause more suffering when the entire premise is predicated on the fact that it won't.

I have to be honest, I'm beyond bored of this argument at this point. I wish some good Samaritan would come along and kill me right about now.