City of IF :: View topic

Philosophy

through

FAQ

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous 1, 2 :| |:
City of IF -> Hall of Debate

#41: Author: BStheGreat,

Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 7:27 am
—

Tikanni Corazon wrote:

it is wrong

I was once naive enough to believe in right and wrong. Then I grew up.

#42: I Think...... Author: PopeAlessandrosXVIII, Location: Surrounded by many beautiful naked men

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 3:03 am
—
I too believe there is no wrong or right, there is only what we each individualy believe in that makes it "Right" or "Wrong" within our own hearts and minds.

#43: Author: Angeal PureHeart, Location: Escanaba, MI 49829

Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 11:03 am
—
I will have to dissagree with that one Pope. To some extent there IS a difference in "Wrong" or "Right" that 90% of humans understand. For instance. It is "Wrong" to kill someone. I am guessing that MOST of us will agree with that statement. It is "Right" to save someones life when you have the ability to do so. (Not including those who signed a DNR) Again I am guessing that MOST of us will agree with that statement. So yes, to an extent it is all based on someones own beliefs, opinions, and hearts. But there are a few standards.

#44: Disagree Author: PopeAlessandrosXVIII, Location: Surrounded by many beautiful naked men

Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 11:07 am
—
Well, for me, the right and wrong in killing or saving all boils down to circumstance. Is it wrong to kill a suicide bomber with adetinator in hand? Is it right to save him if someone's about to kill him to save the crowd around him. Right and wrong, is purely circumstantial as far as death/killing in concerned.

#45: Author: HalfEmptyHero, Location: Where rolls the Oregon, and hears no sound

Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 1:23 pm
—

Angeal PureHeart wrote:

I will have to dissagree with that one Pope. To some extent there IS a difference in "Wrong" or "Right" that 90% of humans understand. For instance. It is "Wrong" to kill someone. I am guessing that MOST of us will agree with that statement. It is "Right" to save someones life when you have the ability to do so. (Not including those who signed a DNR) Again I am guessing that MOST of us will agree with that statement. So yes, to an extent it is all based on someones own beliefs, opinions, and hearts. But there are a few standards.

So you believe that majority rules? By saying 90% of the people think this, and therefore it is right completely ignores the other 10%. Suppose that 10% is right, simply less popular. This is the entire reason why democracy is absolute garbage. As the Sage of Baltimore once said "Democracy is the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." This applies nicely to your idea. Just because there is a majority doesn't mean it is right.

It is odd for me to write this, as too put no stock in right and wrong, but here is an example. Thing of a good old fashioned lynching. Back in the day they were quite popular; find a deserving colored man and string up real nice and tight. As you stated that killing is wrong, you must also believe that this is wrong. But the mob doesn't, the majority doesn't.

But this brings me to another problem with what you said. The idea that things such as murder and thievery are wrong is implanted in our heads at birth. It only a select few freethinkers who would dare even doubt them. One might even call it brainwashing. So how can your 90% account for that? Not to mention societal change. The days are approaching that homosexuality, once thought of as repulsive and "wrong", is becoming accepted. I have plenty more to say, but I have gotten 3 hours of sleep in the last 30 hours or so, and I am too tired to think straight.

#46: Author: Angeal PureHeart, Location: Escanaba, MI 49829

Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 4:10 pm
—
I understand what you are saying, and I know that there are those 10% that will agree. As my brother said with it being depending on circumctances this is true as well. You pointed out the fact that "Lynching" was accepted by the mob. This is true. As is the Holocaust being accepted by the Nazi's. To them killing Jews was "Right" but to us it was "Wrong". So as I stated before "Wrong" and "Right" depends on each individual persons Beliefs, heart, and religion (If they have one). I did not mean to offend you. It is (As I understood) OK to write in your beliefe on "Right" and "Wrong"... If I got that mixed up I am sorry.

#47: Author: HalfEmptyHero, Location: Where rolls the Oregon, and hears no sound

Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 5:19 pm
—
Offended?! Is this not the debate forum? Enthusiasm and anger are two very different things. I was simply stating that your opinion was wrong, and that mine was right. That's pretty much what debating is, is it not? Surprised

Don't get soft on me, you need to fire back with zeal! And never apologize, even if you do offend someone. Debate is war!

#48: Author: Angeal PureHeart, Location: Escanaba, MI 49829

Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 5:43 pm
—
That being the case I find your opinion wrong in my opinion and my opinion right. Hope that made sence. If not too bad. >:3 But really once it boils down what is right and wrong depends on what the individual person believes. When the Nazi's did their thing they thought it right. When America bombed Japan the people of higher power thought it right. Nowadays peoples opinions of it are scatterd. I think it was very wrong where as my brotherfriend Dan thinks it was the only way therefore the right way. (He is pro war) Me being a pacifist does not believe that physical fighting is the right thing at any time. Once again my opinions.

#49: Author: Bookwizard, Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:10 pm
—
So I have been going back and reviving some of my posts (as I tend to do when I myself revive Smile

). So I shall attempt to do that here. I have been holding back because I could not think of a proper topic I would like to debate, but now one has come up in my mind, and hopefully one that will grow and turn into a general debate about government and utopia! I'm vibrating with excitement already, so I will hesitate no longer in starting.

Start out HERE, and read some of my ramblings on Panarchy. After that, post your thoughts on the system. I will most likely in my lunacy defend it to the end, and it will all be great fun! After that others may put forward their ideas for a so-called perfect (maybe a more apt a word choice would be "most ideal") government.

#50: Author: HalfEmptyHero, Location: Where rolls the Oregon, and hears no sound

Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:56 pm
—
I am not sure what we are supposed to debate about, you haven't been very clear on that matter. Are we debating the concept, or the possibility of its implementation. As a concept is great, the best way of governing ever imagined! But it is also complete nonsense and can never be realized. The governments would overlap, they would have to in order to remain their own government, and that would undermine the other governments. Look at it like this:

Guy A is an Anarchist, he doesn't believe in laws and government.

Guy B belongs to a Monarchy, and this Monarchy has many laws.

Guy A kills Guy B.

According to the laws of the Monarchy, guy A should be put on trial for murder. The people of the Monarchy joined it because of its laws, and they want justice. But Guy A is an Anarchist, he follows no laws. In order for the Monarchy to get their justice it have to put someone on trial that is not a part of itself.

City of IF -> Hall of Debate

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT - 8 Hours

Goto page Previous 1, 2 :| |: Page 2 of 2