Legal victory for Alex Jones's targets

[untermensche]

I get nothing from this.

If you think you have a situation where some adults should be allowed to do something and others should be forbidden to do the same thing then give it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I get nothing from this.

I know. The conversation is too abstract, so you can't say "you're stupid and immoral" as your go-to response.

I'm making you think. You don't like it.

 

[untermensche]

I get nothing from this.

I know. The conversation is too abstract, so you can't say "you're stupid and immoral" as your go-to response.

I'm making you think. You don't like it.

I am failing to teach you.

Not my fault. You've twisted my words about a half dozen times.

And you are boring me.

Nothing else is happening.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I get nothing from this.

I know. The conversation is too abstract, so you can't say "you're stupid and immoral" as your go-to response.

I'm making you think. You don't like it.

I am failing to teach you.

You can't teach when you don't even know the subject.

And you are boring me.

Nothing else is happening.

You find abstract philosophy boring, I know. It is more fun to take a position and then say anyone who disagrees with you is immoral and unintelligent.

I asked you for a single sentence that can be considered the foundation of your morality. You've come up with one answer, and you don't like what that answer means. I said perhaps you want to come up with a different answer, but you made it clear you don't want to come up with a different answer.

 

[untermensche]

I find trying to teach you the basics of morality boring.

You have twisted the principle of universality many times into something it is not.

You clearly don't understand simple things.

Like if one nation can attack another nation that is not attacking anyone then all can do it. If we say the attacking nation acted morally and had justification.

 

[AirPoh]

I get nothing from this.

I know. The conversation is too abstract, so you can't say "you're stupid and immoral" as your go-to response.

I'm making you think. You don't like it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I find trying to teach you the basics of morality boring.

You can't teach what you don't know.

You have twisted the principle of universality many times into something it is not.

Your position is that what is allowed for one must be allowed for all. That's all you've told me. You haven't told me anything of actions that might be allowed for all or actions that might be forbidden for all. You've only been able to get as far as what is allowed for one is allowed for all.

I've even given you opportunities to walk back what you wrote, and to give you examples of what you wrote means. You call that "twisting the principle". If your principle starts with what is allowed for one must be allowed for all without giving any further indication of what actions might be allowed or forbidden for one and all, then yes it does mean that it is potentially possible that you might have legalized murder as long as everyone can participate.

You clearly don't understand simple things.

Simple things like saying "what is your moral premise?" One of us doesn't understand that, but it isn't me.

 

[untermensche]

Your position is that what is allowed for one must be allowed for all. That's all you've told me. You haven't told me anything of actions that might be allowed for all or actions that might be forbidden for all. You've only been able to get as far as what is allowed for one is allowed for all.

As far as examining a moral situation I have used the US terrorist attack of Iraq.

That is where you will see where I say what is right and wrong in one case.

According to my central principle if the US attack is justified then all other nations are justified to attack anyone they choose to overturn their government.

If the US action was justified then insane chaos and endless aggressive war is justified.

If the US action is condemned as terrorism then sanity prevails.

Nobody else is justified to do the same.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Your position is that what is allowed for one must be allowed for all. That's all you've told me. You haven't told me anything of actions that might be allowed for all or actions that might be forbidden for all. You've only been able to get as far as what is allowed for one is allowed for all.

As far as examining a moral situation I have used the US terrorist attack of Iraq.

Kind-of, sort-of, and really not-quite.

I asked for your premise. You gave me an example. So I asked for your premise. You said you already gave me an example.

According to my central principle if the US attack is justified then all other nations are justified to attack anyone they choose to overturn their government.

Then you can't say I misinterpreted you when I apply the "if it is good for one then it is good for all" on things I personally consider morally repugnant.

It would be nice if you understood the question well enough to actually give an answer, but I seriously doubt it will happen.

 

[untermensche]

Kind-of, sort-of, and really not-quite.

I asked for your premise. You gave me an example. So I asked for your premise. You said you already gave me an example.

According to my central principle if the US attack is justified then all other nations are justified to attack anyone they choose to overturn their government.

Then you can't say I misinterpreted you when I apply the "if it is good for one then it is good for all" on things I personally consider morally repugnant.

It would be nice if you understood the question well enough to actually give an answer, but I seriously doubt it will happen.

You are assuming I have concluded the US attack was good simply because I point out the consequences of saying it was good.

You have nothing but a misunderstanding of what you are reading.

One way to know if something is good or bad is to ask: What would be the consequences if all were permitted to do it?

What would be the consequences of saying every nation can behave as the US behaved in Iraq?

 

[AirPoh]

Then you can't say I misinterpreted you when I apply the "if it is good for one then it is good for all" on things I personally consider morally repugnant.

That's a complete misinterpretation!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You are assuming I have concluded the US attack was good simply because I point out the consequences of saying it was good.

No, I assumed you said your moral premise is "if one can do it all can do it, if one can't do it none can do it."

You have nothing but a misunderstanding of what you are reading.

How many ways are there to misinterpret "if one can do it all can do it, if one can't do it none can do it"?

One way to know if something is good or bad is to ask: What would be the consequences if all were permitted to do it?

That is a whole different moral standard. By the way, that's what I've been asking you for over and over. You haven't been able to answer that question, and I'm pretty sure that answering it this time was more of an accident than an intentional response.

What would be the consequences of saying every nation can behave as the US behaved in Iraq?

Then they'd satisfy your stated moral premise of "if one can do it all can do it, if one can't do it none can do it."

But now you have accidentally answered my question about your moral premise. Quite by accident I'm sure. Now you've dropped your equivalency moral premise and adopted a consequentialist moral premise.

 

[untermensche]

One way to know if something is good or bad is to ask: What would be the consequences if all were permitted to do it?

That is a whole different moral standard...

Wrong.

Thanks for trying.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

One way to know if something is good or bad is to ask: What would be the consequences if all were permitted to do it?

That is a whole different moral standard...

Wrong.

Thanks for trying.

You've switched from equity as your baseline to consequentialism as your baseline. It is different, even if the difference is too abstract for you to see it.

 

[untermensche]

Wrong.

Thanks for trying.

You've switched from equity as your baseline to consequentialism as your baseline. It is different, even if the difference is too abstract for you to see it.

I've stuck with the principle of universality.

The same rules for everyone.

I have not discussed how the rules should be made.

As far as moral rules I use harm reduction as a guide. Deliberate harm is deemed immoral in my system.

By anyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One way to know if something is good or bad is to ask: What would be the consequences if all were permitted to do it?

What would be the consequences of saying every nation can behave as the US behaved in Iraq?

By this logic there can be no law enforcement. You need to modify your yardstick a bit, you need to look at the recipient, not the doer. Should all who use WMD on civilians be stopped?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wrong.

Thanks for trying.

You've switched from equity as your baseline to consequentialism as your baseline. It is different, even if the difference is too abstract for you to see it.

I've stuck with the principle of universality.

The same rules for everyone.

You've switched back to universality away from consequentialism?

I have not discussed how the rules should be made.

Unfortunately that's the question I keep asking you.

As far as moral rules I use harm reduction as a guide. Deliberate harm is deemed immoral in my system.

This may be consequentialism, or it may be something new. Either way, you are slowly coming closer and closer to answering my question. Quite accidentally I am sure.

 

[untermensche]

One way to know if something is good or bad is to ask: What would be the consequences if all were permitted to do it?

What would be the consequences of saying every nation can behave as the US behaved in Iraq?

By this logic there can be no law enforcement. You need to modify your yardstick a bit, you need to look at the recipient, not the doer. Should all who use WMD on civilians be stopped?

That's insane.

It does not follow in the least.

When Hussein used US helicopters to drop US chemicals on the Kurds he was not punished by the US.

He was rewarded. The Reagan administration moved to remove Iraq from the terrorist nation list so US corporations could sell him weapons for a planned war with Iran.

The Iraq/Iran war was more misery supplied by US meddling.

 

[Patooka]

I love how irrelevant Alex Jones is right now. He hasn't even been discussed in the last 3 1/2 pages. If only the whole "alt-news" scene could fade into such obscurity.

 

[untermensche]

I've stuck with the principle of universality.

The same rules for everyone.

You've switched back to universality away from consequentialism?

I have not discussed how the rules should be made.

Unfortunately that's the question I keep asking you.

As far as moral rules I use harm reduction as a guide. Deliberate harm is deemed immoral in my system.

This may be consequentialism, or it may be something new. Either way, you are slowly coming closer and closer to answering my question. Quite accidentally I am sure.

Your question changes with the wind.

- - - Updated - - -

I love how irrelevant Alex Jones is right now. He hasn't even been discussed in the last 3 1/2 pages. If only the whole "alt-news" scene could fade into such obscurity.

Well he was just picked up by Roku.

There's some news.