Legal victory for Alex Jones's targets

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

My question was "what is your foundational moral premise." Then it changed to "what is your foundational moral premise." I'm sure in the future it will be so completely different that it is "what is your foundational moral premise."

The reason you see it changing is because you don't understand the question. Therefore when you actually do answer it, I'm sure it is by accident. Right now it appears to be either equity or consequentialism or harm reduction.

 

[untermensche]

The foundational moral premise is that any moral rule applies to all people equally. Universality of moral constraints and allowances.

This has not changed.

Only your question has changed.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Just dropped by Roku due to social media upheaval.

 

[AirPoh]

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?

US involvement in Iraq was not law enforcement.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The foundational moral premise is that any moral rule applies to all people equally. Universality of moral constraints and allowances.

Then you can't say I misinterpret you if I say "that means if murder is allowed for one then it is allowed for all."

That's why you changed to consequentialism, and then changed back to equity, then back to consequentialism, then back to equity.

My question changed from "what is your foundational moral premise" to "what is your foundational more premise". You answer stayed the same from "consequentialism" to "equity" back to "consequentialism" back to "equity".

Do you also have your own special definitions of "change" and "same", the way you do for most English words?

 

[TSwizzle]

Jason, have you really not twigged that Unter is a chatbot ?

 

[untermensche]

The foundational moral premise is that any moral rule applies to all people equally. Universality of moral constraints and allowances.

Then you can't say I misinterpret you if I say "that means if murder is allowed for one then it is allowed for all."

That is what it says.

If people somehow decide murder should be allowed then it should be allowed for all. That will definitely show the wisdom of that judgement.

But nowhere does it say murder should be allowed.

That is a whole different matter.

- - - Updated - - -

Jason, have you really not twigged that Unter is a chatbot ?

You confuse consistent moral positions with superhuman powers.

But it is possible for humans to take moral positions.

But if they conclude something like the dictatorial relationship is immoral it means it is immoral for all people.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jason, have you really not twigged that Unter is a chatbot ?

You may be right. He seems incapable of holding an actual conversation, he comes with a narrow set of pre-programmed responses, and when you stray beyond those he simply response with "you're stupid and immoral."

My mistake for thinking he was a person. At best he's an NPC.

 

[untermensche]

The last resort of a bad position.

Fine.

You have discovered my secret.

I am an embodied mind within a computer.

At least to you that is all I am. And you to me.

You don't want to discuss anything.

People interested in serious discussion do not make the fallacy of throwing children into talk of adult morality.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That is what it says.

If people somehow decide murder should be allowed then it should be allowed for all. That will definitely show the wisdom of that judgement.

Then I didn't misinterpret you. We've actually made some tiny bit of progress.

You never said if anything in particular must be good or bad, only that it should be equally distributed. It serves as a rather poor moral premise, because it doesn't say "Action X" is bad, only that either everyone or no one can partake in "Action X". You're right, it is a whole different matter.

For me, I can determine if "Action X" is bad based on my moral premise. It seems you need a lesson in morality.

 

[untermensche]

That is what it says.

If people somehow decide murder should be allowed then it should be allowed for all. That will definitely show the wisdom of that judgement.

Then I didn't misinterpret you. We've actually made some tiny bit of progress.

You have finally understood something, true.

You never said if anything in particular must be good or bad, only that it should be equally distributed.

"It"? "should be equally distributed"?

Nothing is distributed.

If rules are made they must apply to all equally.

And rules made must be justified in some way.

Concepts like the right to life and autonomy and harm must be considered.

Moral rules are not something you pull from your backside.

They must be justified in some way.

 

[AirPoh]

That is what it says.

If people somehow decide murder should be allowed then it should be allowed for all. That will definitely show the wisdom of that judgement.

Then I didn't misinterpret you. We've actually made some tiny bit of progress.

You never said if anything in particular must be good or bad, only that it should be equally distributed. It serves as a rather poor moral premise, because it doesn't say "Action X" is bad, only that either everyone or no one can partake in "Action X". You're right, it is a whole different matter.

For me, I can determine if "Action X" is bad based on my moral premise. It seems you need a lesson in morality.

Sure you did, just not in the particular post unter responded to. Since you seemed to finally be understanding his answer, it's you making a tiny bit of progress.

 

[AirPoh]

Moral rules are not something you pull from your backside.

That depends upon whom your talking to.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You never said if anything in particular must be good or bad, only that it should be equally distributed.

"It"? "should be equally distributed"?

Nothing is distributed.

I thought you finally understood something, and then you go and make a big deal out of your misinterpretation of the pronoun "it".

In this case the word "it" clearly refers to the right to take an action.

So not only did I not misinterpret you, which you finally admitted, you found something new to misinterpret. Good for you. Let's go two pages on the meaning of "it".

And rules made must be justified in some way.

Concepts like the right to life and autonomy and harm must be considered.

This sounds like something I would consider to be a foundational moral premise.

Moral rules are not something you pull from your backside.

Then stop doing so. My way of doing thins is to start with a premise, and derive the rules from that premise. You seem to either make them up as you go or wait for your political leaders to tell you what they are.

I thought you finally made progress, then you stepped in the progress. Sad.

 

[untermensche]

No matter what rules you come up with an overriding principle is they apply to all equally.

That is a moral scheme.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Alright. It's a shallow moral premise, but it is a moral premise.

I'm glad you finally understood the question - after all, it changed from "what is your moral premise" to "what is your moral premise".

 

[untermensche]

It's an essential overriding principle for any moral scheme.

An essential starting point and beyond question.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nothing is beyond question.




Unless you are a religious fundamentalist.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing is beyond question.

Unless you are a religious fundamentalist.

Universality must exist.

Otherwise you have a system of favoritism not morality.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nothing is beyond question.

Unless you are a religious fundamentalist.

Universality must exist.

Otherwise you have a system of favoritism not morality.

I question that, because nothing is beyond question.