Legal victory for Alex Jones's targets

[untermensche]

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.

How would a person earn an exception and be allowed to do something that is immoral for others?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I question that, because nothing is beyond question.

How would a person earn an exception and be allowed to do something that is immoral for others?

That's a good question.

 

[untermensche]

I question that, because nothing is beyond question.

How would a person earn an exception and be allowed to do something that is immoral for others?

That's a good question.

For a morally minded person it is not a hard question.

Nobody has such a superior nature that it gains them an exception.

No ape can somehow gain greater rights than other apes.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's a good question.

For a morally minded person it is not a hard question.

I didn't say it was a hard question, I said it was a good question. After all, everything can be questioned, except by the devoutly religious.

Can you question that premise?

 

[untermensche]

Saying everything can be questioned does not mean there can be no universal principles.

The principles can be questioned.

But ultimately it involves giving some people more rights than others.

It is exceptionalism, not morality.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Saying everything can be questioned does not mean there can be no universal principles.

The principles can be questioned.

But ultimately it involves giving some people more rights than others.

It is exceptionalism, not morality.

So if a person questions your premise that person is endorsing the opposite? I find that false dichotomy questionable.

 

[untermensche]

Saying everything can be questioned does not mean there can be no universal principles.

The principles can be questioned.

But ultimately it involves giving some people more rights than others.

It is exceptionalism, not morality.

So if a person questions your premise that person is endorsing the opposite? I find that false dichotomy questionable.

To give a person an exception from moral universality means some person is allowed to commit an act that has been deemed immoral.

To allow some to behave immorally is not a moral system.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You can only judge the worthiness of a moral system from inside the framework of another moral system. Therefore a moral system that disagrees with your moral system views your moral system as immoral.

 

[untermensche]

You can only judge the worthiness of a moral system from inside the framework of another moral system. Therefore a moral system that disagrees with your moral system views your moral system as immoral.

A system that does not have universality is not a moral system.

It is a system of exceptionalism that accepts the idea that some humans should have greater rights than other humans.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You can only judge the worthiness of a moral system from inside the framework of another moral system. Therefore a moral system that disagrees with your moral system views your moral system as immoral.

A system that does not have universality is not a moral system.

It is a system of exceptionalism that accepts the idea that some humans should have greater rights than other humans.

That is the view from within your moral system. Different moral systems have different moral judgements.

 

[untermensche]

You can only judge the worthiness of a moral system from inside the framework of another moral system. Therefore a moral system that disagrees with your moral system views your moral system as immoral.

A system that does not have universality is not a moral system.

It is a system of exceptionalism that accepts the idea that some humans should have greater rights than other humans.

That is the view from within your moral system. Different moral systems have different moral judgements.

No it is an essential feature of any moral system.

You can't have a moral system without universality.

A system without it is not a moral system.

It is a system where some have more rights than others.

That is not morality.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That is the view from within your moral system. Different moral systems have different moral judgements.

No it is an essential feature of any moral system.

You're really having a problem with the concept of a different moral system, aren't you? Do you understand that there are people out there who actually honestly disagree with you? They can't all be rubbing their hands together saying "Muah-ha-ha, I'm going to do something evil."

 

[untermensche]

That is the view from within your moral system. Different moral systems have different moral judgements.

No it is an essential feature of any moral system.

You're really having a problem with the concept of a different moral system, aren't you? Do you understand that there are people out there who actually honestly disagree with you? They can't all be rubbing their hands together saying "Muah-ha-ha, I'm going to do something evil."

You're really having problems with the idea of an essential feature.

The same rules for everybody is an essential feature of any moral system.

Any system that allows some to do what others are forbidden is not a moral system.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

We want to discuss, you just preach the church of untermensche.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You're really having a problem with the concept of a different moral system, aren't you? Do you understand that there are people out there who actually honestly disagree with you? They can't all be rubbing their hands together saying "Muah-ha-ha, I'm going to do something evil."

You're really having problems with the idea of an essential feature.

The same rules for everybody is an essential feature of any moral system.

There are moral systems that do not include that. Your premise is faulty, because you cannot see that people honestly disagree.

Your moral system says those moral systems are faulty. What you don't see is that your moral system is just as subjective as theirs, and just as you judge them from your system they judge you from their system.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Not that I don't love a great derail, but out of pure curiosity - WTF does any of this have to do with the Alex Jones lawsuit?

aa

 

[Patooka]

Not that I don't love a great derail, but out of pure curiosity - WTF does any of this have to do with the Alex Jones lawsuit?

aa

Alex Jones faded into obscurity after posts #9 and 10. Pretty appropriate metaphor, I must say. What's happening now is a bullshit points scoring internet discussion no one really gives a fuck about (think Star Destroyer vs the Enterprise only sadder).

 

[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.

We want to discuss, you just preach the church of untermensche.

I never preach.

I point out the truth and you call that preaching.

You blindly support any violence some US "leader" decides to carry out.

You question nothing of importance.

- - - Updated - - -

You're really having a problem with the concept of a different moral system, aren't you? Do you understand that there are people out there who actually honestly disagree with you? They can't all be rubbing their hands together saying "Muah-ha-ha, I'm going to do something evil."

You're really having problems with the idea of an essential feature.

The same rules for everybody is an essential feature of any moral system.

There are moral systems that do not include that.

If a system says there are one set of rules for you people but a different set of rules for me then it is not a moral system.

A moral system means the rules are the exact same for every individual.

 

[untermensche]

Not that I don't love a great derail, but out of pure curiosity - WTF does any of this have to do with the Alex Jones lawsuit?

aa

Feel free to talk about him.

He is a fisherman.

And he was able to catch a lot of fish by claiming some horrible mass killing was fake.

It says more about the fish than the fisherman, con man.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You're really having a problem with the concept of a different moral system, aren't you? Do you understand that there are people out there who actually honestly disagree with you? They can't all be rubbing their hands together saying "Muah-ha-ha, I'm going to do something evil."

You're really having problems with the idea of an essential feature.

The same rules for everybody is an essential feature of any moral system.

There are moral systems that do not include that.

If a system says there are one set of rules for you people but a different set of rules for me then it is not a moral system.

A moral system means the rules are the exact same for every individual.

That's what your moral system says, but not what their moral system says. Preach on brother.