cRPG
Off Topic => General Off Topic => Topic started by: Clockworkkiller on October 16, 2013, 04:30:33 am
-
discuss
-
No my penis does.
-
Silly human concepts.
-
I'd say the end justifies the means in some cases, not always. The means justifying the end is silly.
-
wut?
so the means (what you want to reach in the end) justifies the end?
Isn't it more like the means justify the methods?
-
The usual question is: 'Does the end justify the means?'
-
The does end the means justify?
-
I am totally not against it in every single way.
-
once i got pelvic inflammatory disease but don't know if that count :?
-
I'd say, in most cases, yes.
I am totally not against it in every single way.
So if I murder someone it's cool because I did it very cleanly and neatly it would be cool? I am going to assume you both misread the question as 'does the end justify the means', which is not what he asked. I am having a lot of trouble thinking of a scenario where the means justify the end, if you disagree, enlighten me. I'd say if your end goal is bad, the way you get there will in no way justify what you are trying to get at.
Another question, did the OP purposefully turn the question around or was it an accident? Is he actually curious as to whether it could be the case or does he think it is plainly false as well?
-
Another question, did the OP purposefully turn the question around or was it an accident? Is he actually curious as to whether it could be the case or does he think it is plainly false as well?
Hint: look through his post history.
-
Imho:
Life is a journey, goals are small part of that journey. Goals can be personal goals, something that matters to you or slightly different kind of goals, something that matters to others. To achieve those goals that have value in the eyes of other people you often have to disregard their well being, which is a bit odd but that's how it goes. I guess it has something to do with animalistic nature of men, which is still present.
Individuality is the goal we are striving as a population of human species. Being able to function without relying on each other will be the definitive proof that we defeated nature aka order of things on planet earth.
Individuals have their own moral code, which is quite often something society consider the high morality. They rarely hurt others to achieve their goals, because they respect others as much they respect themselves. Those who choose no means to achieve their goals usually consider themselves strong (because of the goals they achieved) but in reality they are weak link of humanity because their moral and value codes are almost nonexistent.
So, I'm against using every possible mean to achieve personal or group goals. But that's just my own opinion, as always :)
-
Imho:
Life is a journey, goals are small part of that journey. Goals can be personal goals, something that matters to you or slightly different kind of goals, something that matters to others. To achieve those goals that have value in the eyes of other people you often have to disregard their well being, which is a bit odd but that's how it goes. I guess it has something to do with animalistic nature of men, which is still present.
Individuality is the goal we are striving as a population of human species. Being able to function without relying on each other will be the definitive proof that we defeated nature aka order of things on planet earth.
Individuals have their own moral code, which is quite often something society consider the high morality. They rarely hurt others to achieve their goals, because they respect others as much they respect themselves. Those who choose no means to achieve their goals usually consider themselves strong (because of the goals they achieved) but in reality they are weak link of humanity because their moral and value codes are almost nonexistent.
So, I'm against using every possible mean to achieve personal or group goals. But that's just my own opinion, as always :)
I'm not sure that sentence and the rest of your post after it matches up at all. I guess that depends on what you mean by "able to function".
Hint: look through his post history.
And this. Was it a real question by a poster that meant it, I would have posted a real post rather than a trollish post in my first post in this thread.
-
:rolleyes:
-
"ends" and "means" are human-defined concepts that do not exist in the physical world. Now that I think of it, "justify" doesn't exist either, as it implies ethics.
-
"ends" and "means" are human-defined concepts that do not exist in the physical world. Now that I think of it, "justify" doesn't exist either, as it implies ethics.
If you established that thoughts in the brain are neurons firing off, transmitting electrical signals in specific patterns, and if you could establish certain patterns to be chains of thought, would those patterns exist if you could identify them? If so, then concepts would indeed exist.
-
"ends" and "means" are human-defined concepts that do not exist in the physical world. Now that I think of it, "justify" doesn't exist either, as it implies ethics.
Your point being?
The way I see it ends, means and justification are words to which each of us apply similar and strongly defined concepts, which means that regardless of them being human constructs, we can discuss the relation between them. Your argument is stupid and senseless as it precludes the discussion of anything that is not directly tangible, while human beings clearly value discussion of non tangible things and have done so for thousands of years.
-
If you established that thoughts in the brain are neurons firing off, transmitting electrical signals in specific patterns, and if you could establish certain patterns to be chains of thought, would those patterns exist if you could identify them? If so, then concepts would indeed exist.
woooahhh bjord there you go talkin' all edumacated-like
-
woooahhh bjord there you go talkin' all edumacated-like
To refute in a fashion most preferred by Xant: Argumentum ad Hominem.
-
in the end we're all pretty mean
-
gud 1 d00z
-
There is no "end".
-
If you established that thoughts in the brain are neurons firing off, transmitting electrical signals in specific patterns, and if you could establish certain patterns to be chains of thought, would those patterns exist if you could identify them? If so, then concepts would indeed exist.
The patterns themselves vary from brain to brain and additionally every concept exists. This doesn't mean that every concept is true. And by true I really want to say applicable to nature.
Your point being?
The way I see it ends, means and justification are words to which each of us apply similar and strongly defined concepts, which means that regardless of them being human constructs, we can discuss the relation between them.
We think about very similar things when we use words like "ends" and "means", but we can't quite define them exactly in physical terms either, simply because that is not possible.
Your argument is stupid and senseless as it precludes the discussion of anything that is not directly tangible, while human beings clearly value discussion of non tangible things and have done so for thousands of years.
Those discussions that humans value, are they valuable ? We don't care. My argument does not preclude the discussion of anything that is not directly tangible. I'm only in the mood of pointing out that this debate cannot end conclusively. Which also means that if we discussed tangible things we could theoritically be able to do just that, even though we don't really value it.
To start such discussions automatically leads to "now bring it to eleven" arguments that push our definitions of the concepts to their limits. At some point we realise we are like blind people trying to reason why blue is more aesthetically appealing than red, and quickly forget about the subject.
-
To refute in a fashion most preferred by Xant: Argumentum ad Hominem.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ad hominem fallacy quick chart
--------------------------------------------------------
NOT AD HOMINEM
- You're wrong
- You're stupid
- You're stupid because you're wrong
--------------------------------------------------------
AD HOMINEM
- You're wrong because you're stupid
--------------------------------------------------------
-
To refute in a fashion most preferred by Xant: Argumentum ad Hominem.
I think that you were looking for ad Infinitum. :idea:
-
I think that you were looking for ad Infinitum. :idea:
Touché, and a one tip of the hat to you, sir.
-
I think that you were looking for ad Infinitum. :idea:
Enlighten us, how is this...
woooahhh bjord there you go talkin' all edumacated-like
Ad infinitum?
People using terms they don't know is so cute.
-
:lol:
Xant, so clueless.
-
Bjord, don't make me break out the chatlogs.
-
Don't you feel weak for having to resort to such things? :(
-
Enlighten us, how is this...
Ad infinitum?
People using terms they don't know is so cute.
You are demonstrating it with this very post.
-
You are demonstrating it with this very post.
You are demonstrating it with this very post.
-
You are demonstrating it with this very post.
no u
-
no u
I'm glad you too realized that your level of argumentation was at that level.
-
"ends" and "means" are human-defined concepts that do not exist in the physical world. Now that I think of it, "justify" doesn't exist either, as it implies ethics.
What do you mean by physical world? Electrons and natural laws are human concepts as well.
And I don't know about exists, but I know sometimes you have to ask yourself "ok, so what should I do?". Well, I have, anyway. (Natural) sciences are handy for answering the question "ok, let's assume I did so and so, what will happen next?" but outside of that they're really optional.
-
Electrons are not human concepts. Electron is a human name for a concept.
-
I'm glad you too realized that your level of argumentation was at that level.
Ad Infinitum. :lol:
-
Ad Infinitum. :lol:
no u :lol:
-
I'm not sure that sentence and the rest of your post after it matches up at all. I guess that depends on what you mean by "able to function".
Leshma contradicting himself in only one post is nothing unusual. There's a reason his forum title was "schizophrenic" for a while.
-
cmp and Urist argue ad hominem, Bjord and Xant argue ad infinitum, Panos and Oberyn argue ad xenophobis and I eat popcorn.
What do you mean by physical world? Electrons and natural laws are human concepts as well.
The outside world would work the same way without humans to understand it.
And I don't know about exists, but I know sometimes you have to ask yourself "ok, so what should I do?". Well, I have, anyway. (Natural) sciences are handy for answering the question "ok, let's assume I did so and so, what will happen next?" but outside of that they're really optional.
It's only science mangled with human concepts that will help you make better life choices. We are not equipped to perceive and reason at a level where scientific knowledge would actually be relevant. We deal entirely in laconic perceptions of huge phenomena and take action based on these perceptions, our memories, our hardwired desires and some fuzzy reasoning thrown in.
-
you guys suck
-
Xant argue ad infinitum
How would the world look different were I not arguing "ad infinitum" but instead answering questions and providing counter-arguments? Apparently that is "ad infinitum", the only proper redneck way of debating is drive-by style where you say something and then flee the thread when your post is questioned.
-
How would the world look different were I not arguing "ad infinitum" but instead answering questions and providing counter-arguments? Apparently that is "ad infinitum", the only proper redneck way of debating is drive-by style where you say something and then flee the thread when your post is questioned.
Aah the Parthian Arrow, we all love to do that.
I was saying that your mode of arguing is precisely "answering questions and providing counter-arguments", which leads to ad infinitum discussions if the other party just doesn't listen to your arguments, which can be fairly summarized as "always".
-
Nobody listens to Xant's arguments? That sounds about right. :wink:
-
Aah the Parthian Arrow, we all love to do that.
I was saying that your mode of arguing is precisely "answering questions and providing counter-arguments", which leads to ad infinitum discussions if the other party just doesn't listen to your arguments, which can be fairly summarized as "always".
Yes, well, better that than the Parthian arrow. But it doesn't quite go on infinitely, it just takes a long time to get to the bottom of my opinions with people whom I have a very large inferential distance with. Which would be most people here. If people wish to call careful and thorough arguing "ad inifinitum", that's fine with me. It is, of course, easier to shout "ad inifinitum!" and beat a brave retreat when faced with difficult counter-arguments, than to actually answer those arguments properly. Which is what has happened every single time someone has claimed that with me; I've barely scratched the surface of the matter at hand at that point.
-
I'm sure you are right in your own mind, Xant, but not everyone possesses your passion and energy for thorough argumentation. As you said, there is a clear inferential distance between you and everyone here and with good reason, it's an internet horses game forum.
-
First of all, I don't think you understand what an inferential distance is, since that sentence makes no sense. Second, so what? Nobody's forcing anyone to continue a debate with me. The defense mechanisms come online after someone's already deep in an argument and notices they are losing badly and need an out without losing face.
-
First of all, I don't think you understand what an inferential distance is, since that sentence makes no sense. Second, so what? Nobody's forcing anyone to continue a debate with me. The defense mechanisms come online after someone's already deep in an argument and notices they are losing badly and need an out without losing face.
Inferential distance refers to the difference between two people's background knowledge, does it not?
Secondly, give an example of when someone has entered in a deep argument with you and ejected half-way. I have no recollection of doing that with you, though. You would know this, because it was in IRC and I even conceded defeat. :wink:
Just face it, Xant, you put too much demand on people's attention and then get snappy when they can't be bothered any more. Have some humility.
-
Inferential distance refers to the difference between two people's background knowledge, does it not?
Secondly, give an example of when someone has entered in a deep argument with you and ejected half-way. I have no recollection of doing that with you, though. You would know this, because it was in IRC and I even conceded defeat. :wink:
Just face it, Xant, you put too much demand on people's attention and then get snappy when they can't be bothered any more. Have some humility.
And this being a video game forum is a good reason for the difference in background knowledge how?
Rumblood's done it, that's why he's still butthurt.
How am I "demanding" anyone's attention, again?
-
Like now, for example, you are questioning me about various uninteresting things (in my opinion).
I just can't be bothered to refute you, and thus I am okay with letting you think whatever you want to conclude from my lack of care.
-
You can't refute me, but that's beyond the point. You're free to not answer, nobody's holding a gun to your head, but obviously it's retarded to make claims and then not back them up. Anyone can do that. In fact, you do that all the time: can't think of anyone who does it more often. I think if you're being honest with yourself, you're just afraid of not being intelligent enough to do it so you make up excuses both to yourself and to others, seeing as you're very concerned about what others think of you.
Anyone who's not borderline autistic can see the irrationality of your excuses.
"You're a communist."
"How's that?"
"Uh, yeah, I could tell you why, but I'm like, not interested. Even though I cared enough to call you one. But I've totally lost interest now."
If you are not interested in conversation, what is the point of posting in the first place? Unless you have a severe case of narcissism and just enjoy the look of your own posts, that doesn't make sense either.
-
Or maybe I'm not always rational and should know better than getting caught up in long-winded arguments with you.
-
Then get rational, bitch.
-
I will consult my 8-ball.
-
I would say get a room right now if I was ignorant of the fact that to the best of humanity's knowledge a single person is always in a single room at a time.
-
Rumblood's done it, that's why he's still butthurt.
Got snappy how? Butthurt? Mischaracterize much?
For my characterization however, you are still at it aren't you?
Ad infinitum :idea:
-
Nobody said you got snappy. Reading comprehension is harder than it sounds, isn't it?
-
[...]obviously it's retarded to make claims and then not back them up. Anyone can do that. In fact, you do that all the time: can't think of anyone who does it more often. [...]
I am disappointed now. And here I was, thinking we had something special :cry:
-
Nobody said you got snappy. Reading comprehension is harder than it sounds, isn't it?
You must have been referring to getting snappy, because I sure as hell didn't eject in the argument halfway. In fact, the only way that you could prove your point is to stop responding, which you continue to prove that you are inherently incapable of doing.
-
My end
It justifies my means
All I ever do is delay
My every attempt to evade
The end of the road and my end
It justifies my means
All I ever do is delay
My every attempt to evade
THE END OF THE ROAD!
-
You must have been referring to getting snappy, because I sure as hell didn't eject in the argument halfway. In fact, the only way that you could prove your point is to stop responding, which you continue to prove that you are inherently incapable of doing.
No, see, the only way you could prove your point is by jumping off a cliff. So unless you do that, you're wrong. I wish it wasn't so, but these things are True Facts.
-
No, see, the only way you could prove your point is by jumping off a cliff. So unless you do that, you're wrong. I wish it wasn't so, but these things are True Facts.
Case in point. Even when you have nowhere left to go, you still argue on, though it proves you wrong.
-
Case in point. Even when you have nowhere left to go, you still argue on, though it proves you wrong.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
"does the means justify the end?"
No, no they do not.