so, lets get started
do you believe in vengince?
Printable View
so, lets get started
do you believe in vengince?
You mean vengeance?
And if so, what do you mean exactly, do we believe that vengeance is a useful policy, or that vengeance is moral, or what?
I mean, do you think it is right to harm someone for harming you on a moral level
I was trying to be the greatest philospher ever that stormy out of sealab not socrates who was stupid. Plus their no such thing as the socratic nor any guideline to say what is and what isnt in this method so smearing paint on a wall doesnt is a poor example as socratic would put it what a Dali?Quote:
Way to go becomingagodo - now everyone thinks Socrates was a facetious prick. This is not the Socratic method. You are close, but about as close to the Socratic method as smearing blue on the wall is close to painting a Dali.[/b]
Well i was going for confusion. So now your not confused you know less now. What am i thinking now? Well is socrate a person or is he a figment of your imagination! Is the principle of life to die or is life the moments of consiousness that fleat by.Quote:
Damn..Thanks, O'nus. You too my utter confusion at what, exactly, this thread was outlining and completely flipped it around. Kudos.
Turns out, I use this method all the time, when trying to find out why people think the things they think.[/b]
Well socrates deals in nothings. Or he just questions. He says he knows nothing so he dose not deal in absolutes.Quote:
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes..." - Obi-wan Kenobi
...Socrates was a Sith! We are all doomed![/b]
What who blaming me for something i didnt say.Quote:
But it is not becomingagodo who asked "Why". It was Howetzer. So why do you blame becomingagodo for asking "Why".[/b]
It is not the point that matters it the prinicple. Life isnt simpleQuote:
Anyway this method of argument is great as a logical, philosophical, and debate tool, but in my experience when you apply it in real life, people get pissed off pretty fast ( See what happened to poor Socrates in the end... ) and often don't listen to the end, so you can't reach the point you wanted to show. Even when you use it in Court, the judge might get impatient and tell you to get to the point already...[/b]
Ironically speaking for someone that doesnt like the illogical you just created a infinte loop. In plain english a post within the same post within the same post e.t.c.Quote:
[15:20:49] [+Merlock]: I can't blame you, such things are bound to happen after reading this thread: http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/inde...howtopic=42162[/b]
YesQuote:
I mean, do you think it is right to harm someone for harming you on a moral level[/b]
you do know you can edit your posts, right?
anyhow
So if you cause harm to someone, would it be okay for them to harm you?
Let me ask you this keeper if a dog bit you wouldn you kick it back. Now keeper if you hit someone and they hit you back it your fault and it revenge for them not you. Keeper revenge is getting your own back not starting trouble.Quote:
So if you cause harm to someone, would it be okay for them to harm you?[/b]
no. this has happend to me
true, butQuote:
Now keeper if you hit someone and they hit you back it your fault and it revenge for them not you. Keeper revenge is getting your own back not starting trouble.
[/b]
A) If the situation is reversed, I dont hit back (yes, and it has actually stoped a fight from starting properly) so I find revenge a difficalt thing to conseave
and B) I was drawing out a logical conclusion
now
is it right for them to hurt you if you just hurt them?
It figures.Quote:
no. this has happend to me[/b]
Now here your problem. If somebody killed all your family sawed off your hand and blinded you in one eye. You shot him. Now your arguing you cant shoot him because if the stituation is reversed you wouldnt want to be harmed. Put it this way if you harm somebody you should be harmed be it by yourself or by somebody else. Does this anwser your question. Well if somebody killed your family wouldnt you want revenge instead of it just walking away.Quote:
true, but
A) If the situation is reversed, I dont hit back (yes, and it has actually stoped a fight from starting properly) so I find revenge a difficalt thing to conseave
and B) I was drawing out a logical conclusion
now
is it right for them to hurt you if you just hurt them?[/b]
I dont feel like hitting a creature acting on instinct is a fair act
There is a large difference between killing/harming someone because they hurt you, and killing them because they hurt your friends and family. I wouldn't kill in cold blood, only if it is the only way to save my loved onse. If it is after the act, I dont know, but I doubt I would kill the monsterQuote:
Now here your problem. If somebody killed all your family sawed off your hand and blinded you in one eye. You shot him.
[/b]
two thingsQuote:
Now your arguing you cant shoot him because if the stituation is reversed you wouldnt want to be harmed.
[/b]
one, I could if the situation was to save, but not if it was just revenge
two, it is not because I dont want to get hurt myself. Dont confuse being passivity with fear
I believe I see your side, but it is not a one-shot question. It is a continuing discussion of thoughtQuote:
Put it this way if you harm somebody you should be harmed be it by yourself or by somebody else. Does this anwser your question.
[/b]
I would have a form of revengeQuote:
Well if somebody killed your family wouldnt you want revenge instead of it just walking away.
[/b]
so, would you have revenge on the person who has had revenge on you?
Well a pacifist. Well what the difference between punching a rapist during the act of raping and punching after he has raped someone.Quote:
There is a large difference between killing/harming someone because they hurt you, and killing them because they hurt your friends and family. I wouldn't kill in cold blood, only if it is the only way to save my loved onse. If it is after the act, I dont know, but I doubt I would kill the monster[/b]
So you do believe in revenge. Well as i said earlier if i did something i wasnt proud of i will accept a revenge and do nothing after.Quote:
I would have a form of revenge
so, would you have revenge on the person who has had revenge on you?[/b]
I wouldnt i was just anwsering your question.Quote:
but why would you do something to warrent revenge in the first place?[/b]
You have to destroy evil in all forms. If somebody does something bad then that must be beaten out as one would say. See if everything was going crazy you wouldnt just sit their and watch the root of all are problems stems from ourself. Now if you a coward that doesnt want to act on something then be it. Some things need to be destroyed the greater good.Quote:
because who are you saving?[/b]
So you are Judge, Jurry and Exicutioner?
YesQuote:
So you are Judge, Jurry and Exicutioner?[/b]
who gave you that power?
How would you define "Bad," objectively?
And so you're saying that all evil can be "beaten out?"
There are no cases in which fighting fire with fire only intensifies the blaze?
And, as posted before:
How do I know you are thinking now? :chuckle:
Well i made it really simple so keeper can understand so beaten out doesnt mean fire with fire it is more then that see every chess checkmate is different but they have the same purpose.Quote:
How would you define "Bad," objectively?
And so you're saying that all evil can be "beaten out?"
There are no cases in which fighting fire with fire only intensifies the blaze?
And, as posted before:[/b]
Well evolution or in your case god. We have more cognitize functions then anyother animal the only reason i have got that power is because i use it. Also i think i qualify for Nietzsche overmanQuote:
who gave you that power?[/b]
Well i dont normally go into self pride because i dont believe in the self. The point i can judge, jury and execute so why would i let that go to waste. Have you seen the Lastsupper it really good movie.Quote:
1.By using his will to power destructively, in the rejection of, and rebellion against, societal ideals and moral codes.
2.By using his will to power creatively, in overcoming nihilism and re-evaluating old ideals or creating new ones.
3.By a continual process of self-overcoming. [/b]
you are so full of yourself
so does someone have the right to harm you if they think you diserve it?
Seriously how can a person who doesnt believe in a self be full of himself. Well logic isnt your strong part.Quote:
you are so full of yourself
so does someone have the right to harm you if they think you diserve it?[/b]
Well the anwser to your question is no.
U SMRT
PS: Request move to senseless banter?
Hey this is not senseless banter. Because were discussing the philosophical ideas of revenge, death and punishment by imploying post socratic methods.Quote:
U SMRT
PS: Request move to senseless banter?[/b]
Ok:
1) That was the biggest cop-out to answering a question (or in this case, three) that I've seen on this board in a long time.
2) For someone who was looking around for people who don't "suck at the Socratic method," it's clear to see you failed to use it for the past few posts, now.
Getting back to things:
1) How can you rationalize that vengence, in the form of "eye for an eye" (which is what you were advocating, whether you want to recognize it or not) is a more suitable form of "checkmate" (to use your own analogy) than Keeper's form of passivity, without implying, presumptuously, that vengence always solves the problem? (Because it doesn't)
and 2) Are you implying that everyone that has the power to "judge, jury and execute" should exercise that right (or is that priviledge simply reserved for you?) and, if so, what moral obligation do you, or anyone else for that matter, have to judge, jury and execute fairly and not simply to any twisted, biased standard that they may have, when doing so, since "checkmates can be different"?