heyrabbit

damn... got the kid's in hte hall theme stuck in my head. do, duh do, da doo, (da na na na na) do, duh do, da doo

Roll your eyes if you want. but let it be known that that is the extent of your argument ;)

Yes it's immoral to do drugs. Morality is an ethical code of values by which a person/society guides their actions in order to exist. Morality is not an arbitrary set of rules, an undefinable, random code which serves no purpose other than whatever you randomly decide is right. Morality is simply what is necessary for man to live man qua man. I'd like to remind anyone who's reading this that you still have not offered a single sentence describing what's moral. And you want society to live by this code?! You're telling me it's silly to say morality is definable? I think it's silly not to to define your morality. The word "moral" doesn't exist for you to use whenever you want to randomly justify something as the standard of what is good. Today this is what is right. Why? I don't know! The world is "complicated". Oh, wait, I change my mind. Now this is the standard of what is right for all humans. Morality applies to humans because we're a species of volitional choice. A tree have no volitional choice, otherwise it could have morals. An ape has volition, but no rationality. We have volitional choice as well as rationality. we have the power to do that which makes us human, to think. We also have the choice to act like animals, and many of us do. This is why we have varying levels of civilization, and why we need morality in order to be civilized. Our civilization is currently in regression. Just as a zoologist can tell what different species require in order to exist, we know what humans require in order to exist as humans. To be moral is to be human. How do you define morality? How does a zoologist define what's required by each individual species? The reason why there's been no scientific approach to morality is because the standard up until this day has been God or some other authoritative figure in society. I do accept freedom as my right. You are still an advocate of slavery And I won't respond to your "workers controlling work" thing, as I've done so in other threads. You speak of work as if it were some entity unto itself, completely disregarding the economy,trade, etc. Everyone just "works". The hiring process doesn't exist in this anarchist utopia. I can't wait to walk up to someone and say, "You have to hire me by law! I choose to earn 1 BILLION dollars an hour. "

My current view on morality is only weeks old. nobody is smart enough to be wrong all the time. I'm constantly changing my ideas and learning, and I respect and value anyone who proves me wrong. I don't expect everyone to argue as much as me, but I can't allow you to misrepresent the Right to Life. The Right to Life does not mean "The right to be alive", as that would fundamentally negate your Right to Life. If you don't have the freedom to choose to kill yourself, you're life has already been taken from you. (?!) Alright, I think you're just trying to irk me, but I'll humor you anyway. You can't be an armchair philosopher man. You're superficial (and completely false) understanding of capitalism does not constitute Capitalism. These terms have very specific meanings, and you don't know what they are, look it up. Capitalism is in favor of complete freedom of mind and body. In a communist society, you are literally considered the physical property of the state! This isn't even debatable., it's common knowledge. And you are a staunch advocate of slavery. Do you know what the free market is? Employment is just trade on a more established and complicated level. It's a voluntary exchange of value for value and it requires the consent and approval of both parties. Basically what you're proposing is an abolishment of free trade. Do you know what this would entail? Suppose I offer to mow my neighbours lawn, and he/she agrees to pay me $5 . Upon accepting the conditions of my employment, I now decide that I want a BILLION dollars. What right does my neighbour have to enslave me? This is asburd, but it's the system you're proposing. trade cannot be both voluntary and involuntary. You've understood this since you were in elementary school. You might have offered to trade your muffin for someone else's cookie. If they refuse to trade, you can't "trade" them anyway. that's theft

I had a dream that I smashed my guitar. it was sickening

Those definitions aren't the greatest, but they aren't the worst. The definition says, "concerned with the judgement of what is good". Simply saying that healthcare is good doesn't tell me what "good" is. That's as much assumption and judgement, unless and until you define your morality. You can't just say that morality is what is good, because what is good is moral. That leaves us asking, good -- by what standard? morality is an ethical code of values a pesron uses to guide his actions. You want me to judge the healthcare system by the same standard of morality that lead it down the drain in the first place? You're complaining that I'm immoral, but the status of healthcare today is the manifestation of your moral ideals; it's your moral ideals brought into reality, not mine. Such a system would leave people without care, in your current system of government. But it's precisely becuase of our system of government that so many people are without care. It's my fault for not fully explaining my position. Because I have so much conviction in my position, and becuase my position is so eccentric by todays standards, I sometimes forget that people don't hold to be true that which I consider to be obvious and apparent. I fundamentally opposed to involuntary taxation, which is basically all taxes. It's a clear violation of my initial right, and the source of all rights, my right to live. If you take away man's ability to engage in self-sustaining action, if you take away the product of his effort, you're abrogating his freedom, thus abrogating his life. Whether we're in a jungle or in Saskatchewan, or Toronto, or California, man has to be free to act on his own volition, to live. Freedom of mind relies on freedom of physicality, and vice versa. In order for man to be free, and to live, he must be free to use his mind. The first principle of logic is A is A, man is man. In order for man to be man, he must must be free to do that which agrees with his nature, to think. I fully appreciate that taxes are an undisputable restriction of freedom and restriction of life. . I do not think that man is a sacrificial animal who exists to live for other men. It's fundamentally against our nature because it's against our minds. Man is a rational being. We're not a strong species, or a fast species, we're a smart species. That's why the anti-mind is the anti-life. Since our lives depend on our freedom of mind, and our freedom of mind relies on our freedom of action, and our freedom of action relies on a free economy, what happens when we don't live in a free economy? The wealth of our nation is commensurate to our personal freedoms. Our governments are based partly on an altruist's morality ( a false morality). So you see that it's the altruist's morality brought into reality. If you think the redistribution of wealth is necessary, look at what happens when you increase it. Would you trade your lives in Canada or the U.S. for a life in Cuba, or China? I don't think anyone has a moral right to emergency service. That doesn't mean I think everyone deserves to die, because I believe in a political system that would give everyone the ability to earn their own lives. I don't want to be a slave to every man who abuses his body and requires surgery. I don't want to be a slave to every child born by another human being. I don't want to be a slave to every idiot who gets into a car crash. The right to live at someone else's expense is fundamentally against man's nature, it's unhealthy for society, and it's immoral. Now, that doesn't mean that anyone unable to earn his own wealth should die. I fully accept voluntary taxation as a means of helping those aren't able to take care of themselves. Don't assume that a society based on personal would result in more death. I know the opposite to be true. More people would be more wealthy, and more people would be better off. That's what it means to be moral. The "dental" portion of my question wasn't imperative to the point I was making. You don't want to pay it because it's elective? What about the guy who elects to overdose on drugs and requires emergency care? What about the guy who elects to drink all his life, then requires surgery on his liver? You can substitute "dental bill" for anything. I'm trying to emphasize the importance of property rights. Buy gas for my car. On what grounds do you refuse to me your money?

Communism is a disgusting evil doctrine. You can't have the right to the product of anyone's effort without owning that person. You don't own my life, and you don't have the right to enslave me!

I have scorn for passion? If I didn't give a damn, why would I bother debating all this time? And just because I'm reasonable, how does that mean I'm not passionate? Just because power is spread out equally, that doesn't mean it ceases to be power. Instead of one person bossing you around, you have millions bossing you around. You're describing socialism, which is a system where everyone is a slave to the will of the collective. That's what's wrong with democracy, and that's why I keep asking you to define your morality, which you admit is unintelligible. You can say that you want everyone to have say, but you should be focusing on what the right thing to say is. Morality is generally only discussed as it pertains to humans because it's a human concept. But if you were to look elsewhere in nature, you would be able to define, in the same way, what is moral for any species. What's moral is what is conducive to the survival of that species. For example, trees. Certain conditions are more or less conducive(more or less moral) to the survival of individual trees and hence all trees. Certain conditions are more or less conducive to the survival of dogs, etc. The difference between our species and other species is that we have no excuse to not act morally, becuase we have the ability to objectively observe and learn what we need to do in order to survive. I do not think that unintelligibility is a good qualification for any opinion on morality. Morality exists independent of what you think, or what I think. You can't "emotion" healthiness, any more than you can "emotion" an essay, or "emotion" work etc. you can only use your mind to decide your actions. Now, you have the choice of whether or not you want to base your actions on the facts of reality or on emotion. If you're using emotion to guide your actions, yo'ure operating at a sensory level of awareness, like an animal. Regardless of what my mind knows, I do what I "feel" is good. It's ethical hedonism. What you "feel" is good for you is not necessarily what is good for you. That's what it means to be a baby. Morality is defined differently in different places and different times, but that doesn't mean they define the "right" morality. There is only one definable morality. You can't choose your own morality any more than you can choose to not be affected by gravity or the laws of nature. Different cultures have had different scientific views, that doesn't mean reality adjusts to their opinions. You can't decide that alcohol is healthy for you. You can't subjective decide that stabbing yourself is good. you can't subjectively decide that stealing is good. You can't decide that being murdered is good. etc These things are immoral because they're bad for you and because we're smart enough as a species to recognize it, not because you "feel" that stabbing is bad, becuase you've observed it. Do you want a doctor to fore-go medical school and operate on you based on his emotions?!

Oh, so you were responding to the other guy talking about morals If you take every word out of an argument, it tends to lose its validity, in an academic sense. I find that the majority of the time people disagree symbolically and semantically, not principally. i.e. if we disagree on the meaning of a word, we're not arguing against each other,we're arguing a false understanding of what the other person's argument is, which is what has happened. Words are complicated concepts in an of themselves, representing a wide range of abstractions. The dictionary is not only a great great tool for defining words, it's the only tool! You misunderstand the concept of taxes. That's why I posted that. Of course my argument will lose all power, to whoever misses the point. I haven't even clearly laid out an argument, only asked a question to which, not surprisingly, you've both repeatedly ignored. You're trying to discredit what you've assumed I'm arguing in favor of. Since when does a matter of personal opinion require a citation? I wasn't trying to prove anything to you, as if the dictionary would be a valid citation for my subjective opinion. I only require my approval, and I haven't even told you what I think yet. As a matter of fact, I don't approve of "free" emergency service for everyone. Really, how is it clear that I have no morals? Also, please answer the question.

Rights are a moral concept. If you think everyone has the right to basic care, you do so because of your morality. That's why I keep talking about it -- we're all talking about it. See? You ridiculed me for talking about morals, and then give me your estimate of what is moral in the very next sentence. It's not relevant whether or not dental is covered in your province, or mine, or in the States. I simply asked Matrix to pay my dental bill, irrespective of policy. And I'll ask you too, Toad. I'm asking you to pay my dental bill. Are you kidding me? Here

Yeah, but the reason why nobody can afford it is not because someone else isn't paying for it, it's because the U.S. economy sucks. I think it makes sense to have an economic system that gives everyone the right and ability to earn their own health. On what moral grounds do you refuse to pay my dental bill? Why is it only generous to give to people you've never heard of, in amounts you have no control over?

If your opinion is based on your emotion, then from now you'll have to remove "I think" from everything you say. Your justification for anarchism is that you "feel" it's a good system. What's the point in debating if you cannot be dissuaded by reason? The whole point of a debate is to quantify and qualify your argument with reasons in order to persuade the opposing person. Why try to rationalize a philosophy you fully admit is not based on reason, only you're arbitrary whim and emotion? Nothing I say can change your mind so long as your opinion is based solely on your emotion, irrespective of reality. I live in reality, so nothing I could effect your opinion. Of course, I don't really believe that. And I don't think you do either, otherwise you wouldn't bother trying to rationalize anything; instead of offering reasons, you'd show your emotion to prove your point. you'd display "sadness" and "anger", maybe you'd scream or cry. Our rationality is what makes us human - our ability to perceive abstract concepts based on what we observe in reality. If you were to base all your actions solely on emotion, you'd be reduced to the perceptual level of the range-of-the-moment, like an animal or an infant. If you're hungry, you eat, if you're angry you smash and bang, etc. So do you see what would happen if you based an entire political system on this precept? We'd revert to barbarians! Incidentally, the predominant system of organization for primitive man(and man of today) has been that of the altruist-collectivist. We didn't become civilized until we broke free from these moral precepts and developed an appreciation of rights. That is the morality of the moral-subjectivist, removing the mind from our actions, basing all action only on arbtrary whim and emotion. i.e. Choosing to not be human, thus retarding or reverting the progress of humanity. in regards to "abolishing bosses", if you democratize the economy, you haven't abolished authority, you've proliferated it. Everyone has authority over everyone! Morality can only be found with an objective observation of reality. What is moral is what is right, and what is right is what is good, and what is good is what is moral, etc. There's no such thing as "your" morals, or "my" morals. There can only be one morality because morality is either correct or incorrect. Something can't be both moral and bad at the same time.

who is that little dude? is that little wee bishop?! 7

5/10, I'm not sure what it is. look like a deflated alfred hitchcock

is sometimes yellow, other times purple

0, I don't like errors

I can explain why socialism is slavery, although I didn't think I'd have to and I'm not going to. I've never met a person in my life who's been able to explain why capitalism is slavery, without showing a superficial understand of hwat capitalism is. Capitalism fundamentally means freedom of action. To say that capitalism is slavery is to say:complete freedom is complete restriction of freedom. Socialism = collective ownership of the means of productoin your anarchism = abolishing immoral coercion (according to your unnamed code of morality) anarchist-socialism = collective and private ownership of the means of production. Do you see why this position is invalid, before you've even begun? Philosophy is a building; If the foundation is faulty, the rest crumbles. You can say that you "don't want people to boss you around"but that doesn't constitute an ideology, not one anyone's going to take seriously. There has to be some level of consistency throughout, or else it ceases to be a rational philosophy. That's the whole point of logic - non contradictory identification. What happens if you're given a logical equation in math class and you decide to substitute parts of the equation as you see fit. i.e. your logical equation is "not axiomatic". x+2=5. X now means 4 sometimes. Thus, 5-2=2. Sometimes I "feel", without reason, that X is really 9. X=3+2=8(why not?) etc etc Ideology is focusing on the origin of ideas. This,of course, means that you have to identify the origin of your ideas. Every ideology is based on a code of morality. Like any philosophy in general, your can choose to base your concepts on reason or whim. My opinion is is that it should be based on the facts of reality. This is where we're fundamentally opposed in our ideas. From what I've read, it seems to me that you have no appreciation for reason. I'm not judging you personally, only your ideas. When I challenge the source of your ideas, you openly admit, not only that there is no source, but there shouldn't be a source(!). So you're a moral subjectivist. The philosophical equivalent of that would be a creationist. I'm hte opposite. I don't think that our government should be based on anyone's arbitrary whim, disregarding the facts of reality. You're right in agreeing with noam chomsky on the idea that (most) ideologies are not axiomatic. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be based on axioms. (perhaps that's whay he meant.) you have the right to control your work, but others have the right to control your work, too? contradiction That's the communist-materialist position, that you don't own your body, that you're property of the state.if you're a socialist, you're a collectivist. and you just said that other's have the right to control your work... You seem to be using the term "power" vaguely, not only to describe moral criminals, but anyone in general who has something you want. i.e. that your boss and teacher shouldn't control you. Do you mean control or influence? Those are two separate things. You can make the free choice to leave your place of employment, but you can't decide that influence is immoral. i.e. "it's a crime for my boss to make me do something I don't want to do". your boss doesn't have the right to set the conditions of your employment - by what right?

Everyone ought to have health care...at whose expense? What's immoral about you being forced to pay my dental bill? And you know exactly why it's immoral because you would consider my request for money as absolutely laughable. Why, then, is acceptable in a larger and more indiscriminate format? It's not a system that will benefit everyone, but I never said it was. i.e. gun ownership is moral but shooting people is immoral. Poverty is an economic issue, not an ethical one.

yeah but what's "it"? "it" is everyone else's health care. everyone pays for everyone else's health care... What are the chances that someone receives medical treatment proportionate to the amount they pay in taxes? it's a ridiculous questoin. The U.S. system is more moral, but with a bullshit economy, nobody can afford to live.

I don't like free(someone-else-pays-for-it) health care. free health care is useless when you're dead. The system is so slow that it can take months to DIAGNOSE patients. you might have cancer, come back in a month for your pre-pre-pre-pre operation appointment. we'll operaate on you in 2010, woo it's "freeee!"

some more British slang: "slapper", "trollop", "prangin'", "innit"

I retract my statement that capitalists are "greedy". That was an poor and incorrect choice of words on my part. Capitalists are "selfish". There's a big difference. What makes socialist-collectivist policies immoral? what's immoral about slavery? What's immoral about me having the "right" to your car and exercising that right? What you've essentially just said is that anarchists are out to abolish power(coercion), which is interesting because that is the definition of the concept of "rights" - the freedom to act. So you think anarchists fight for rights. The only problem is that you're talking about socialist anarchists(!). That's where the contradiction lies. Man has rights sometimes and other times he is to be a slave? -- by what right?! This is why I ask what code of ethics and morality anarchism is based on, even though I already know the answer.It's a system that's self-contradictory and its principles are inevitably vague and arbitrary. Since it is a system not based on reality, the lack of a clearly definable source makes hard for anyone to define what a "right". One is left to decide arbitrarily what is "right" and "good". That's why you can only give a vague explanation of the implementation of our rights; we ought to control our "dwelling" and "work". That could mean any number of things. Does that mean we have the right to own our homes, or only live in them? If we don't have the right to own our homes, we are slaves. If we have the right to own our homes, but not our means of production, we're still slaves! This is why Capitalism is the only system built on the concept of individual rights. it's the only completely free system. I didn't say that rights are natural. it's a man made concept with property as its only currency. Right! That doesn't mean that if you don't own a condo, you have no rights; Remember that the first right is the right to the property of your own person(to live). What use is a condo to you if I lock you in a cage? True again, partially! My rights exist, they're just not currently implemented properly. A right is not a guarantee, it's a moral principle. i.e. I have the right to not be murdered. that's not a guarantee that I won't be murdered. If by "equal" you meant "equal portion of property", which is how socialists generally use the term, I don't agree! I don't want "equal" or "fair" rights. those are misleading terms. I want correct, moral rights to be enforced.

ha, I only bought about 5 things from the store yesterday and Dole lettuce was one of them

enjoys ruffles sour cream and onion?

Read this. EDIT. Snakistann not statistan. sorry...