User talk:Infinity0/archive01

A discussion on religion
Just transfering this offtopic discussion to a more appropriate venue. :-) crazyeddie 15:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Crusades were an unprovoked attack to "recapture" the "holy land". I have no idea what I mean by "some": I'd have to look at the specific situation. When your opponent cannot see reason because they are so blinded (eg fundamentalists), then death is the quickest option. There are better people to argue with than being bogged down by a fundamentalist. Infinity0 21:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I say "invasion", you say "recapture". Do you really think it matters to the corpses? As for the Crusades being a "holy war" - medieval knights never needed a reason to fight. They only needed an excuse. That's true whether we're talking about Christians and Muslims. And who did the "holy" land "originally" "belong" to? The Byzantines. And who were the big loosers of the Crusades? The Byzantines - stabbed in the back by their own "allies" and "co-religionists".

When talking about religious wars, we have to be careful to consider this: is religion a reason for the war, or is it an excuse? If religious differences disappeared, would there be an end to war, or would we just find a different excuse to fight? Shirts versus skins, perhaps? I suspect that the answer to this question, as it is to so many either/or questions, is yes. Even so, a religion generally has to be pretty twisted from its original roots before it can be used as a reason for war. I defy you to show me how the Crusades were justified by anything in the recorded sayings of Jesus.

Death, on the whole, is not a viable solution to religious differences. Consider Chinese history - the Legalist pograms against the Confucians back during the thankfully-short-lived Qin Dynasty. Considering that the history of that period wound up being written by Confucians, who do you think won that particular dispute between religions belief systems?

Let's stipulate that it is impossible to convince Fundamentalists of any stripe by logic. But is it really the Fundamentalists we are trying to convince, or is it the people still on the fence, which are still reachable? If we convert those, then the Fundamentalists will be denied new recruits, and will eventually "retire or expire". Time wounds all heels. By killing Fundamentalists, we only make martyrs out of them, and we alienate the very moderates that we are trying to reach. crazyeddie 15:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Lol, "nice" "quoting" :D Actually invasion is what I meant by "recapture", the double-quotes was my trying to be sarcastic on the internet :) I never said the Crusades were justifiable, I was actually implying the exact opposite - that the people who started the Crusades don't deserve life.

De-converting the masses would be a lot more effective than killing people, obviously. I understand this (and have done so from the very start) and agree with you completely. But that takes a heck of a lot of time. Sometimes a quick solution may be better. I'm not saying this is always the case, or even the majority of cases. It might cause a martyr, it might cut off the head of the snake. I just can't say. But what I was saying that there do exist situations where it's the better choice. Infinity0 16:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I was well aware of what you meant, but I needed to make the point. Yes, the Crusaders weren't exactly on the side of the angels, but, hey, give them some slack. They were just being human - you know, highly mutated ape descendants? They didn't know any better. I'm not entirely convinced we know any better, although I have hope. And to misquote Gandalf: "Yes, many live who deserve death. And many die who deserve life. Unless you can give life to those who deserve it, don't be hasty in giving death to those who deserve it."

Let the dead bury the dead and let's concentrate on making as good of a tomorrow as possible. Learn from the past, by all means - but don't be trapped by it.

Don't sweat the amount of time things take - good things come to those who wait. I remember that back in the 19th century, churches in my country spent vast sums on sending missionaries to China - without much success. One guy spent something like 40 years there, and made exactly one convert. And he was celebrated as a great success. Today, the Christian Church, although it is most certainly a minority, still exists in China, even in the face of persecution. It, and the other surpressed religions, may well prove to be the Communist Dynasty's undoing. Wouldn't be the first time a dynasty has been destroyed by a religious movement. The moral of the story: We believe that the truth is on our side - and we must have faith that this will count in the long run.

Furthermore, even if Fundamentalists can't be converted by logic, perhaps they can be converted by other ways. If I have learned one thing during my short stay on this planet, it's that it isn't logical to assume that humans are logical. We are agreed that Fundamentalists are being illogical. Let's use this vaunted reason of ours, and find out why they are being illogical. If we can't bring them to the truth, maybe we can use our understanding of them to work out some sort of accomodation that will let us live in relative peace until such time as they go extinct.

And, yes, there are times when killing the members of a cult will kill the cult. But this only works when the cult is extremely fringe, when killing the all the members of the cult will kill all copies of their memes, and there are no "fellow travelers" who are likely to pick up the fallen banner. And if the cult is that marginal, then it is almost as effective to just ignore them, albeit less... stress releaving. crazyeddie 16:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

But, giving death to those who deserve it will often retain the lives of those who deserve it. We believe that the truth is on our side - and we must have faith that this will count in the long run. - Ironic, no? Faith doesn't do anything, action is required. I don't have faith in the "power of the truth" as you might call it. With the current proportions of good vs bad people, I doubt very much that "the truth will count in the long run." People are flawed, and you have to change the population's attitudes before anything.

The "Communist Dynasty" has already been undone, by forces within it. Frankly, I'd rather the whole country was communist than it convert to christianity. Infinity0 18:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Teleological argument - rivers
Regarding the rivers arguement which you reverted, it is my contention that there are three classes of things, not two (living, ID-made), and that if you fail to define the third category, things must inevitably be wrongly classified. Therefore I request that your reversion be overturned.

Tabletop 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the stuff you wrote isn't a river "argument", since it didn't really argue anything. But supportors of the Teleo Arg would say that god create the law of physics which rivers operate under. Which brings us back to the original argument of whether god exists or not. Infinity0 15:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Teleological arguement - Godel and infinity
Bumping the conversation we've started there over here as not to murk up the conversation screen with this tangental debate... in answer to your inquiry:
 * basically, I see it like this: math is usually two steps ahead of science. A lot of purely theoretical math (say, for example, string theory and finite fields) ends up being extremely useful to science somewhere down the line (the most current model of the structure of the universe is based on string theory.. computer scientists were able to make huge steps by learning all about finite fields). Are math and nature intrinsically linked? Good question.. I was taught the fundamentals of math philosophy by a fledgling contemporary in the field (Jonathan Kastin.. couldn't find any of his published works online, though).. he speculates on what he dubbed "mathematical duality" questioning, basically, whether there is an actual link or if we only create the link in our mind a posteriori .. call it synchrocy or whatever you will, it doesn't change the fact that it's a recurring phenomenon. I don't see, at least from a logical stance, why we can't assume the universe to be coherant theory (set of rules or however you'd view it) and with it have a 'super'-universe or container universe that is a proper superset of the original theory. It would then reduce to the logical tangibility of an infinate string of such universes.

Yes, that's a good point. (wow, string theory is maths? i thought it was physics) But maths ISn't the universe. Maths is just the way the universe works. I still stand by my viewpoint that "that which exists can be measured" and we all understand that infinity can't be measured. I don't see how objects are logic, which is what Godel's theory is about - logic. Infinity0 15:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A little debate on morality
<>

The taoist has no opinions He simply listens, and acts He treats those who are good as worthy He treats those who aren't good as worthy, too And so he finds their goodness He gives those who are honorable his trust He gives those who are dishonorable his trust, too And so he gains their trust

Or to put it another way, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Or hate the sinner too, if you must. But remember always: "But for the grace of 'God', there go I." crazyeddie 03:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the sin without the sinner? Btw, I'm not taoist either. I have no common specific set of beliefs or thoughts. Infinity0 10:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm a Taoist? I merely recognize wisdom when I see it. What is the sin without the sinner? Well, it is possible to kill the sin without killing the sinner. If you kill the sinner without killing the sin, then the sin can live on - in you. (He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.)

In the final analysis, we are all sinners. If you hate sinners, then you will love no human. Including yourself. But if you love virtue, then we are all virtuous. If you love virtue, then you will love all humans, again, including yourself. crazyeddie 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Sin is just a concept, you can't kill it. ''If you kill the sinner without killing the sin, then the sin can live on - in you. '' - why's this? Killing an innocent person isn't the same as killing a murderer or a tyrant. If you hate sinners, then you will love no human. - why's this? Infinity0 18:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

We are all innocent, we are all guilty. By killing a murder, or by enforcing your will on a tyrant by force of arms, you become a murder and a tyrant yourself. If you wish to destroy sin, destroy it in yourself first. Sin is just a concept? That only makes it all the more dangerous. crazyeddie 19:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

By killing a murder, or by enforcing your will on a tyrant by force of arms, you become a murder and a tyrant yourself. - Why do you think this? (btw, I never said you were taoist) Infinity0 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you not think this? What is a murderer but someone who kills "innocent" people? What is a tyrant but somebody who enforces their will on others by force of arms? crazyeddie 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Murderer's aren't innocent. By killing a murderer you're not committing murder. You only breach someone's rights if they have those rights in the first place. Once you kill an innocent person you should lose your rights to life; and then anyone can kill you. It's only right for people who do bad things to have bad things done to them; otherwise bad people will always exist. Infinity0 16:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

So, to restate what you are saying, there are two categories of people - innocent and guilty. Those who are guilty should be terminated immediately, because they are a danger to innocent people. The guilty have no right to life, the innocent do. Would you say that this is an accurate statement? crazyeddie 05:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I really shouldn't post when tired... Anyway, so according to you, we are born with a hefty list of rights, and, by violating the rights of others, we give up the rights we violate? This can be used to illustrate my statement that we are all guilty, because it is virtually impossible to interact with the rest of the world without violating somebody's rights. We might not be murderers, but we are guilty.

Even babies aren't innocent, because, quite frankly, the little orange monkeys are rights-violating machines. We have, I'm assuming, the right not to have massive amounts of pain inflicited on us, but babies, by hormonally initiating labor, give their mothers some of the most intense pain possible. We persumably have the right not to be woken up at 3 A.M., but I imagine all of us, just by virtue of being normal babies at one point, have long since given up that right.

Even if we accept that we morally can kill murderers, it is not entirely clear that we ought to. Why do you say that we ought to kill murderers? Just for kicks, or because they are a threat to others? crazyeddie 17:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * but babies, by hormonally initiating labor, give their mothers some of the most intense pain possible. We persumably have the right not to be woken up at 3 A.M., but I imagine all of us, just by virtue of being normal babies at one point, have long since given up that right.
 * OK then, you lose your rights if you breach somebody else's "on purpose, and for a good reason." I doubt it will get as pedantic as "being woken up at 3AM" but by giving this example, I hope you see my logic.
 * What's your reason for saying it is virtually impossible to interact with the rest of the world without violating somebody's rights.? Have you so little faith in humanity? And if we DO break other people's rights, then we should accept what comes to us.
 * Why do you say that we ought to kill murderers?  - Because they deserve to die for what they have done. Also, murderers are most likely to do something bad again. I know every case is different, but the cases which the people had a really good reason I don't think of as murder.
 * This is good. I think all laws should be short and simple. Pointing out flaws in my ideas will help me to form something that's simple and fair. But I don't think you only lose rights, you can also gain or re-gain them by doing good things. So this part also helps to solve the "baby crying makes mum suffer", and another scenario in which a person "kills 1 to save 10000". Infinity0 17:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

<>

<>

Which is it? Let's say you have a thief. By stealing from others, he has forfeited his right to property, therefore it is morally permissable for you to steal from him. Further, if he deserves to have done to him what he did to others, then morality demands that someone steal from him. But is stealing from him likely to stop him from stealing again? I would think he would be even more likely to steal in the future, having no material goods to fulfill his needs.

What about somebody who vandalizes or litters the commons? He has forfeited his right to having unmolested commons, but we can't molest his commons without molesting everybody else's. But we can't harm him any other way, providing he hasn't given up any of his other rights. Does morality demand that he go unpunished?

<<''Have you so little faith in humanity? And if we DO break other people's rights, then we should accept what comes to us.''>>

Say rather that I recognize that humans have a right not to be harmed without cause, but that it is virtually impossible to not harm somebody with every action we take. (By breathing, I deprive someone else of oxygen.) The only way to not harm anybody is to take no action - but refraining from taking action is also an action. Therefore, I voluntarily surrender any rights I might have, and invite others to treat me any way they wish - provided they give me the same permission!

<>

So a murderer, who has lost his rights to life, can regain those rights at a latter date? What would the point of that be? Has he ceased to be a danger to innocents? Does he no longer deserve death?

Do we only have a right for bad things not to be done to us? Do we also have a right to have good things done to us? (In which case you are giving those rights up even as we speak - there are earthquake victims in Pakistan you are doing nothing for, you lazy person!) Or could it be said that we have a right not to have good things done to us? That we give up that right by doing good to people who don't deserve good things to be done to them - thereby giving everyone else permission to do us good, even if we don't deserve it. And what do you mean by "good" and "bad"?


 * Also, murderers are most likely to do something bad again; Because they deserve to die for what they have done. - Which is it? - why not both? I implied that. But is stealing from him likely to stop him from stealing again? - The point is to punish him. I would think he would be even more likely to steal in the future, having no material goods to fulfill his needs. - The more he steals, the more he has stolen from him. Why should society have to make an effort to change a person who hurts it? The objective is to minimise the damage the person does. A person who is naturally a thief is of no use to society and will relapse anyway no matter how he is conditioned, and a person who was influenced to become a thief will see that it's wrong after being punished only once or twice.


 * What about somebody who vandalizes or litters the commons? But we can't harm him any other way, providing he hasn't given up any of his other rights. - Applying the rule means people can now litter his property. If you are that bothered about litter, then yes, I suppose you would have the right to go onto their back garden and litter the place. So a murderer, who has lost his rights to life, can regain those rights at a latter date? - I suppose if he escaped punishment, then saved 100 lives, he would regain those rights, since that would show that he has probably changed. But that chance is so small it is more reasonable to punish him first, since he could equally if not more so commit another bad act.


 * it is virtually impossible to not harm somebody with every action we take. (By breathing, I deprive someone else of oxygen.) - Please stop making up awkward complications. Depriving someone of 1% of their oxygen is not "harm". edit: OK, if you're going to be really pedantic then let's play it this way. A typical person has a right to 0.21&plusmn;0.03 (21&plusmn;3%) unit oxygen for every unit air they breath. By breathing in close to them, you're reducing the oxygen concentration by about 0.005(0.5%) as a rough estimate. Hence, you're not breaching their rights.


 * The only way to not harm anybody is to take no action - but refraining from taking action is also an action.  - please explain this. As far as I know I have not harmed anyone today; that is within the limits of the above rules and I have not forfeited any rights. The rule includes "purposefully and for no good reason". edit: Also, if breaking rights is somehow inevitable, everybody in the world would be affected; everybody would lose those rights. Just because everybody does it shouldn't make it somehow immune to the rule; just that everybody loses out, nobody benefits from it.


 * As for the last paragraph, that has nothing to do with my "rule". The rule is self-explanatory. Doing nothing to help somebody outside my range isn't breaching anybody's rights. Yes, I know that there must be an agreed "list of rights", but for the moment can we please pretend that such a list exists, since I can't be bothered formulating one right now. I'd also have to make up another rule saying what responsibilities people have towards other people, I suppose. And what do you mean by "good" and "bad"? - the rule does not use these terms... where did I say those words? Infinity0 23:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

<>

Ah, but that is how we test moral theories! Oxygen is a bad example, because it isn't currently scarce. A better example would be fresh water. For example, around Kansas way, there is an aquifier that is being used for irrigation. This aquifier took thousands of years to build up, but, the way things are going, it's going to be drained in a few decades. By using more than their fair share, the farmers are giving permission for everybody else to do the same (as far as they are concerned). So, if everybody is doing this, everybody has permission to continue doing it.

But if a farmer doesn't use as much as he can, then his crop yield isn't going to be as a large as it might be. He is harming himself, violating his own rights. (Unless you'd like to argue that we don't have rights to ourselves?) Worst comes to worst, the difference between using as much aquifer water as he can get away with and not using more than his fair share could, in theory, mean the difference between life and death. And then somebody has to clean up the body, surely a violation of their rights!

So, in such a situation, the farmer violates the rights of others if he takes an action, violates the rights of others if he doesn't take an action.

<<''Applying the rule means people can now litter his property. If you are that bothered about litter, then yes, I suppose you would have the right to go onto their back garden and litter the place.''>>

Does it mean that we can litter his property, or does it mean that we can litter his portion of the commons? Going into his backyard would be a violation of his rights - his right to not have tresspassers. This also applies to the aquifer example above. If a farmer takes more than his fair share of water, does that give us the right to break into his house and start guzzling tap water?

<>

Don't be so sure. Did you use any electricity today? Use a motor vehicle? Then there is a very good chance that you are adding to the carbon-cycle imbalance, and so harming everybody on this planet. There is probably at least one yak herder, somewhere way the heck out in Outer Elbonia, who isn't "part of the problem", might even be taking carbon out of the system, and you are infringing on his rights.

<>

I disagree. That would be a complication in your elegantly simple moral theroy. If the list of rights must be agreed upon to be valid, then what objective validity does it have? What if someone doesn't agree with your list? Let's say this - we start out with the right to have no action taken that affects us, including good ones. The definition of good acts becomes "an action that we would like others to take against us". This being so, we would rush to violate that particular right with someone else, in order to give others permission to do that act to us. (But, using only this rule, we would not be under any further obligation to do good, only under obligation not to do harm.) The definition of bad acts becomes "an action we wouldn't like others to take against us". This being so, we would refrain from doing that act to others, in order not to give permission to others.

Now you wish to add "responsibilities" to the list? My, this is getting complicated. Tell me - if rights and responsibilities didn't exist, how would you treat others?

<>

Because a "natural" sinner is a danger to society. If it is impossible to change a person, then the only way to deal with a "natural" sinner is to deal with them permamently. If your goal is to minimize harm to society, and it is your belief that it is impossible to change a person, then the way to deal with a thief is to either kill them or imprison them for life. If a sinner can't change, then stealing from a thief only makes it even more likely for them to steal.

As for giving people what they deserve, harm for harm, good for good, there is a problem with that. If the rule is "eye for an eye", then eventually, everyone will become half-blind. Your "rights" theory seeks to get around that, but it can break down. For example: Arthur sees Bruce. Arthur knows that Bruce has plucked out the eye of someone else in the past. So Arthur plucks out Bruce's eye. Charlie sees all of this, but he is unaware that Bruce had given up part of his rights. So he plucks out Arthur's eye. It now turns out that Arthur was still innocent, so Charlie has given up his right. So all three lose an eye. I suppose you could say that Charlie didn't knowingly violate Arthur's rights, but would David know that?

It might be worth checking out Prisoner's dilemma, third paragraph. "Tit for tat, with forgiveness", tends to do better than "Tit for tat", especially when miscommunication is possible.

<>

<>

What are these but examples of "killing the sin without killing the sinner"? So you agree that it is possible. The question then becomes "how probable is it"? The answer is to turn to statisitics on recidivism rates. And, quite frankly, they'd be lower if we didn't have this obsession with "eye for an eye". Punishment (that is to say, reforming someone's character) doesn't necessarily have to be unpleasant. I've heard that one of the most effective therapies for inmates is to raise utility dogs - seeing eye dogs, dogs for K9 units, etc. It teaches these "sinners" the value of caring for others. But some people are against these programs because they are too "soft" on criminals. crazyeddie 15:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)



Farmer paradox - the crops physically need (have a right to) water. The water which the farmers are using presumably isn't actually going to the farmer's use, it's going to the crop's use. If the farmer was hogging all the water for himself then it would be a violation.

Litter paradox - there is no such thing as "his portion" of the commons. The commons is public property. By littering property belonging to the public, he gives the public rights to litter his property. That would presumably include rights for the means to do so, ie. trepassing on his property for the purpose of littering, but not for any other purpose.

Omni-harm paradox - If I harmed the world slightly (by using electricity), then the world would have a right to harm me slightly, (by scraping some dead skin off my shoulder or something). Another way of answering this would be that minor things like this don't individually count as harm - I define harm to be something which disrupts the workings of a system. So, pumping out a kilgram of CO2 a day isn't harm to anybody, pumping out three thousand tons of CO2 a day would be. I prefer the second answer, but whatever works.

List of Rights edit: Morality is subjective. There is no such thing as objective morality - it's just a social contract which everybody agrees upon for the purpose of maximising survival. If everybody killed each other then nobody would live. Some people might unconditionally wish not to do harm, other people might wish not to do harm to (prevent harm from being done to themselves). The result is the same, and the social situation is static so the reasons are irrelevant for now, until they change (eg where we have to leave the planet or something).

We start out with the right to have only (actions which we agree to) carried out on us. Instead of assuming that other people want the same (things done to them) as (the things we wish done to us), why not ASK them before doing the actual act? This gets rid of your good/bad action paradox.

Now, I suppose you could argue that you won't be able to do anything good to anybody since it might not be possible to know (what they want done to them), eg sending aid to poor people half way around the world. Well, in this case you can send the aid, but you're not forcing them to take it. Their act of taking the aid answers the question. When you are in a position to force your actions onto someone, then you are invariably also in a position to ask them their consent.

But, using only this rule, we would not be under any further obligation to do good, only under obligation not to do harm. - This is where responsibilities comes in. But if nobody harmed anybody then the world would be a much better good place. There would still be natural disasters, but at least then no person is avoidably causing the harm

Naturally evil people - If bad people don't change on their own then they are naturally evil. Even if you change their attitude, the problem will re-occur, since that's their genetics. The goal is also to "punish" the offender, not just minimise harm to society. stealing from a thief only makes it even more likely for them to steal. - and then they will have even more stolen back from them. They'll end up in a cycle of theft and this will waste them down, until they stop.

I suppose you could say that Charlie didn't knowingly violate Arthur's rights, but would David know that? - If David asks everybody. That is why we have a thing called a "trial" to get information out. People could lie, but that's why we're trying to invent truth-serums and lie-detectors.

Forgiveness - yes, more people might change if they were not punished. But what is punishment? My rule just uses the actions of a person to determine their consequences... there's no specific one-to-one list of crimes vs punishments. (Most times when I say the word "punish" I just mean what's justified, ie. they get what they give.) The rule doesn't explicitly mention punishment - only that people get a taste of their own medicine, so to speak. You experience what you have done to other people yourself. I should think that's more effective than a long jail sentence, or anything else. As for death, well, that's experience, and it's effective.

I've heard that one of the most effective therapies for inmates is to raise utility dogs - seeing eye dogs, dogs for K9 units, etc. It teaches these "sinners" the value of caring for others. - these are good things I suppose. It doesn't really conflict with my rule though. You could confiscate a theif's property AND offer his this course.

Tell me - if rights and responsibilities didn't exist, how would you treat others? - Rights and responsibilities don't exist. It's just a concept, and I use these concepts in the way I interact with others. So the question is meaningless, as the only way I wouldn't know what rights/responsibilities are is if I don't exist.

What are these but examples of "killing the sin without killing the sinner"? - I'm sorry, I still don't understand this... If you mean sin as an action, how can an action exist without a person to do it? If you mean the concept of sin, then you can't kill a concept anyway.

My theory is elegantly simple because I can see there is no reason for it not to be. Complicated laws can always be re-formulated into a much more general law. The simpler the law, the more people can understand it, and less people can abuse it.

Infinity0 21:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * <>


 * "Sin", in the Christian's worldview (which is where I swipped it from, of course) means not just a particular action, but also a state of being estranged from God. To translate into atheistic (or at least non-theistic, not quite the same thing) terms, "sin" means a state of having an immoral character. By killing "sin", you reform somebody's character so that they will no longer perform sinful actions. You could, in theory, kill everybody who is in a state of sin, but that would hardly be an optimal solution. Which is better for society, a corpse, or a citizen capable of pulling their own weight? At any rate, murder is still a sin, so you would have to commit suicide when you were done. In fact, if you define "sin" as a state of mind, then you are being "sinful" by not realizing this. By not understanding "love the sinner, hate the sin", you are more likely to commit immoral actions. Such as pushing politically for being "tough on crime", when such a measure would cause an increase in recidivism rates. (Do you really want the UK to be more like the USA?)


 * <>


 * Yes. Rights and responsibilites have no objective existence. But because we believe in them, they take on meaning. You could say that they emerge as a sociological property of human socities. This being so, what is the truth value of the statement "humans have rights"? What does this imply about the truth value of the statement "there is a God"? Are you sure about that?


 * <>


 * So, if I see an unconscious person lying under a pile of rubble, I should leave them?


 * <<'There is no such thing as objective morality - it's just a social contract which everybody agrees upon for the purpose of maximising survival.''>>


 * That sounds like a definition of objective morality to me. If a social contract doesn't maximise survival it is immoral (or at least sub-optimally moral). This, in principle, could be objectively measured. Of course, I don't remember signing no social contract...


 * The problem I see with most moral theories is that they focus, almost by definition, on what we ought to do.
 * Would you try to improve the way the world works?
 * You won't succeed
 * The way the world works is the mold by which it continues working
 * Nothing else can make it work
 * You can follow it and you can use it
 * But try to mold it, and it will slip through your fingers


 * Instead of figuring out what we ought to do as humans, perhaps we should first examine what we do as humans, and why we do it. Perhaps this might give insight into what we ought to do. Do you agree? crazyeddie 15:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)



Sin - However my rule doesn't specifically mention anything about "evil" or "immoral behaviour". It's just a simple application of justice, where you get what you give. It isn't really being "tough" on crime, it's just treating criminals which the attitude they treat their victims. By killing "sin", you reform somebody's character so that they will no longer perform sinful actions. - but that's not killing "sin" in everybody. Just that one person. So "sin" as you define it will always exist.

Which is better for society, a corpse, or a citizen capable of pulling their own weight? - That depends on what the citizen is like. By not understanding "love the sinner, hate the sin", you are more likely to commit immoral actions. - in this rule, there is no love or hate for the criminal. They just get what they give. There is no compassion or anger within the rule.

''You could say that they emerge as a sociological property of human socities. This being so, what is the truth value of the statement "humans have rights"?'' - Yes OK, "humans have rights" is not an accurate statement, rather "humans agree to a set of concepts".

So, if I see an unconscious person lying under a pile of rubble, I should leave them? - this is where responsibilities comes in. If you can save an unconscious person then you will have to take the chance that they want to be saved. However, even if they wanted to die, then you won't have breached their rights since you didn't know AND were not in a position to ask, and used your better judgement, and since they could always commit suicide after being saved: you're not taking away his oppourtunity to commit suicide, so you're not taking away his rights to commit suicide.

Objective Morality A social contract has an objective; but this doesn't mean it IS objective. The thing you're measuring is its objective-efficiency, not its objectiveness. Of course, I don't remember signing no social contract... - I don't remember signing an agreement to abide by the laws of my country, but I'm forced to. To be pedantic, you sign it when you come into existence.

Society - There are many reasons why we do bad things. That doesn't it's right to. It's cowardly to assume that an attempt to improve the world will always fail; what else would you do instead anyways? Infinity0 17:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

An interesting point my friend pointed out: but babies, by hormonally initiating labor, give their mothers some of the most intense pain possible. - You could always argue the mother agreed to endure that pain by getting pregnant in the first place. Infinity0 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog
On the talk page of Exitence of God you and another are having a discussion on morality. Could you guys carry on that discussion somewhere more appropriate (maybe a subpage to a user page)? Moving the conversation in its entirety would be useful as putting it in the archives for talk about the article Existence of God makes no sense. When things are in their proper place it make it easier for everyone to find what they are looking for. Thanks in advance. WAS 4.250 01:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * KK, will do. Infinity0 15:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
You edited my changes on the 2nd law of thermodynamics page. Calling it a revert is inaccurate as you kept the ideas i was aiming for. Thanks for editing in a constructive fasion - unlike those that simply zap changes they don't like. Fresheneesz 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

2nd law
Alright, i can't find the revert button. I didn't know there was one. Whats this guy's problem anyway, hes wrong but doesn't want to tell us why he thinks hes right... and he switches IPs.. so banning him wont help for very long. Fresheneesz

Oh, there's no "revert" button, sorry I implied that. Just go into history, click the link of the correct revision, then when it loads up hit "edit this page", then click "save page". Infinity0 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Stubborness
I see you're also Male, Chinese, and age 16. Nice to meet you. I'm Keon Un. =) Boy, you're one stubborn piece of ****. LOL LCS 03:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You can rewrite the section if you want, but the current version is a piece of crap. Infinity0 16:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

PortalPage
I revert your changes to Template:PortalPage, as it needs to be consistent with the Main page. &mdash;R. Koot 18:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

By fighting each other, we are screwing the whole project
We may have done the templates in, as some users are posting votes to "delete both". Any ideas how we can save this project? Go for it! 10:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be ironic if our deletion votes were the deciding votes on each template. As the votes stand now, if we both changed our votes to keep both templates, the votes on both would be tied. Go for it! 10:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The vote is pretty close
If you have any friends who can vote, you should probably ask them to go to TfD and lend their support. Go for it! 11:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's Keep 5 : Delete 3 atm I think. Infinity0 20:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)