Re: Best world scenario
Posted: August 20th, 2017, 3:41 pm
I am pretty sure he first came here to kick some atheist ass, only interested in the thread once God was mentioned and now he is using the word marginalise so I am guessing it just became political for some reason. I mean one person marginalising another person, or even a group of people is just me saying "you aren't worth my time" and so long as the basis for that isn't superficial then what is the problem?
The problem is with your implementation of what we agree is a fact, that people have contradicting goals, goals they will regret or have unanticipated and unwanted side effects. There are many cases of this where this is not esoteric, we can predict with reasonable certainty that members of gangs will reap unwanted consequences that contradict other goals, that may end up in regret and unnecessary hardship. However you need to be careful about assuming what you can predict and what you can know about the goals of others, I feel that you use this fact to discredit intentions that you find disagreeable and you've done just this many times, your actual understanding of the subject I have no disagreements with and so this really isn't a difference in interpretation or understanding, but methodology. You accept goals that are make sense from a stereotypical Western morality/ethics basis and aim to discredit goals that fall outside of that. Whether it is destroying the world, stealing from others, the actions of terrorists, the actions of Germans in ww2, I suspect that all actions that were criminal or cruel, or go against basic morality you would seek to discredit by saying they are far from reality.
What I need is some real world acknowledgement that breaks this trend and demonstrates you are ready to apply these agreed upon truths. This debate started out with me thinking you were a complete moron, basically disagreeing with every single thing you said without exception and now here we are, with what seems to be very few things left to even discuss because we have somehow managed to agree with each other. I know that I have changed my views about certain things over this debate and I have said as much, I wonder how much you think you have changed over this debate... Your position about this has always been the same but before you had an extremely dubious justification for it and now you have a fairly reasonable justification for it. I have no faith in peoples ability to create good goals for themselves either, the only issue I have is that you seem to have an agenda here... and that you make sweeping generalisations where you don't really have the basis to do so. Is it not enough for you to simply hold an opinion? Why must you categorise what you find disagreeable as being against reality?
I don't think I am missing your point at all, in fact most of what you said has already been said by me. I saying that there are goals beyond increasing quality of life and that these goals cannot be assumed to be "far from reality" due to assuming a premise that this desire is impulsive, or ill thought-out and that regardless of whether it is expressed, latent or just logically consistent with other stated goals, that it is always safe to assume that quality of life is the only goal worth having. You say that destroying the world is far from reality on this basis no? If you don't have this stance, why would it be far from reality to destroy the world? If I am aware of the consequences, if it aids my goals and I am being rational and consistent then how can I be far from reality?No you miss the point I'm trying to make.
The problem is with your implementation of what we agree is a fact, that people have contradicting goals, goals they will regret or have unanticipated and unwanted side effects. There are many cases of this where this is not esoteric, we can predict with reasonable certainty that members of gangs will reap unwanted consequences that contradict other goals, that may end up in regret and unnecessary hardship. However you need to be careful about assuming what you can predict and what you can know about the goals of others, I feel that you use this fact to discredit intentions that you find disagreeable and you've done just this many times, your actual understanding of the subject I have no disagreements with and so this really isn't a difference in interpretation or understanding, but methodology. You accept goals that are make sense from a stereotypical Western morality/ethics basis and aim to discredit goals that fall outside of that. Whether it is destroying the world, stealing from others, the actions of terrorists, the actions of Germans in ww2, I suspect that all actions that were criminal or cruel, or go against basic morality you would seek to discredit by saying they are far from reality.
What I need is some real world acknowledgement that breaks this trend and demonstrates you are ready to apply these agreed upon truths. This debate started out with me thinking you were a complete moron, basically disagreeing with every single thing you said without exception and now here we are, with what seems to be very few things left to even discuss because we have somehow managed to agree with each other. I know that I have changed my views about certain things over this debate and I have said as much, I wonder how much you think you have changed over this debate... Your position about this has always been the same but before you had an extremely dubious justification for it and now you have a fairly reasonable justification for it. I have no faith in peoples ability to create good goals for themselves either, the only issue I have is that you seem to have an agenda here... and that you make sweeping generalisations where you don't really have the basis to do so. Is it not enough for you to simply hold an opinion? Why must you categorise what you find disagreeable as being against reality?