Why I hate 9-11 - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/19/2006 08:47:17 PM · #126

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Believing that an action is right, does not make it so.

What makes it wrong? You believing it's wrong? Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?

Well, you certainly take the case for ethical relativism to the extreme. I understand the concept, I just think your use of it is misguided.

I believe that ethical relativism extends only so far, and there are moral absolutes. Actions are inherently good or bad regardless of consequences.

In most every case, good consequences flow from good actions. And, ultimately, bad consequences flow from bad actions. Good actions are not good just because good results typically follow from them; good actions are inherently good just as massive objects are inherently heavy. It's just naturally so.

I respect your take on things, and certainly it is not an unhealthy view. However I have studied too much history to accept it.

The decimation of pretty much all indigenous peoples of North America led to what most people would consider a 'good outcome'. Two nations in Canada and the US where the populations enjoy liberties and prosperity not often found in history.

The firebombing of Dresden, the atrocities that marched in the wake of the Soviet tropps as they pushed into Germany - these things resulted in the demise of Nazism and ended the slaughter of East European Jews.

Dropping atomic bombs on Japan ended the atrocities being committed in Nanjing, the Phillipines, etc.

Were those proportionate or appropriate responses? Were they acts of good? What you call moral relativism I call realism. People make choices and take actions based on what they believe is right and justified and there is no higher power to consecrate their actions or put a big Thumbs Up in the sky. Things happen, more things happen as a result. Some good, some bad. History goes on.

Your reasoning can be used to not only justify those things that you say ended atrocities, but also to justify the atrocitious actions themselves. So, if your argument can apply equally to those atrocities, they cannot then be considered bad. Using your resoning, the slaughter of the Easter European Jews wasn't bad, nor was firebombing Dresden, the events in Nanjing, flying planes into buildings, nor is robbing a liquor store, murder, rape or any number of things. All of that is OK by your reasoning.

Certain things are inherently wrong. You can argue it all you want, but it's true.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/19/2006 09:09:29 PM · #127

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

... I do think that there is a common biological response to certain things - eg those by which we are revulsed, such as incest and cannibalism ...

Incest and cannibalism are not at all uncommon in the "biological" world -- it is only in certain "advanced" human societies where even a modest proposal to engage in such activities would be "unthinkable."

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/19/2006 10:32:12 PM · #128

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The fundamental point I am making is that wrong or right is in the eys of the beholder. There is right and wrong, they are concepts that you define. They are not shared, universal truths.

Using your examples:

- the slaughter of the Easter European Jews wasn't bad:

a) The Allies thought it was bad

b) The Nazis thought it was their moral duty to destroy the subhuman founders of the bolshevik ideology which threatened the civilized world

- firebombing Dresden

a) Germans, not just Nazis, felt and still feel this was a very evil thing

b) The Allied forces felt this was a moral act in a war against evil

c) Spazmo and others I think are marking this down as an evil act

- the events in Nanjing

a) the Japanese had no moral qualms whatsoever about this

b) pretty much everyone else thought this was an evil thing

- flying planes into buildings

a) a large number of Islaamic clerics and their followers view this as a righteous attack against a very great evil in the world

b) some people call such folks purveyors of an evil religion

etc, etc, etc

It's all about what side of the fence you are standing on and who is around afterwards to write the history books.

09/20/2006 01:16:07 AM · #129

Originally posted by routerguy666:

It's all about what side of the fence you are standing on and who is around afterwards to write the history books.

Your statement has nothing to do with morality. It is about judgement, not right and wrong from a moral standpoint.

Just because you win the war doesn't make anything and everything you did to win right.

Don't assume that because someone chooses a course of action that is morally wrong, that it is not better than another course of action that is also morally wrong. Sometimes the choice is between morally wrong acts.

And please, don't assume that I believe any act to be evil or not. It's rude and in any case you aren't qualified to know my beliefs.

While you can argue unitil your face is blue, there are universal moral rights and wrongs. They are not defined by individuals. If you choose to deny they exist and it makes you feel better that's your choice. You can also choose to believe that the world is flat.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/20/2006 01:19:31 AM · #130

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Just because you win the war doesn't make anything and everything you did to win right.

He's saying there is no universal right and wrong and you're saying there is. This is the same argument for the existence/non-existence of god. Can you prove something you believe is morally right?

Edited for clarity.

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 01:24:16.

09/20/2006 01:32:24 AM · #131

Originally posted by yanko:

Can you prove something you believe is morally right?

No more than you can disprove it.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/20/2006 01:54:20 AM · #132

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by yanko:
Can you prove something you believe is morally right?

No more than you can disprove it.

Oh I agree.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

09/20/2006 03:08:01 AM · #133

I you really get bored and have an hour to kill and want to sit at your
computer instead of watching TV, watch this video online:
//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&hl=en

It's a lot of footage and Enginering & Physics professors & experts trying to uncover the World Trade Center building collapses. In a nutshell, they all concur it was a pre-planned, controlled demolition, and were physically impossible to collapse upon themselves, in their own footprints, at the free-fall speed that they did. Interestingly enough, World Trade Center building #7, which only had minor fires on two floors, also collapsed in the same manner. They also state that never in recorded history before or after 9/11, has a steel frame building ever collapsed due to fire, many burning at temperatures far higher than the WTC fires, yet fire was the underlying cause in the official report as to why the WTC buildings came down. No mentions of the violent subterranian explosions that happened seconds before the planes hit, yet were recorded on seismographs by a University.

The sites were very quickly cleaned up instead of a long, drawn-out reconstruction like they normally do. Even one of the planes wasn't bothered to be re-constructed for analysis. Much of the steel from the WTC buildings was "conveniently" reduced in the collapse to nice tidy 30 foot sections that were easily and quickly whisked away. Smoke plumes were seen in slow-motion videos playbacks poofing the smoke & debris horizontally outward from the buildings, during and before the collapsing floors. The theory that is officially been recorded is the pancake theory, which is one floor, collapsing down on another and another, etc. yet to man's best efforts, cannot even come close to being
replicated. If that were the truth, it would have taken 40-60 seconds to level each of the WTC buildings, not 8-10 seconds, at free fall speed, as they did. Also something interesting is that a considerable amount of more money was spent investigation Clinton, that was spent on the WTC investigation supposedly.

Wonderful huh?

In my own conclusion of it now, I agree this was a planned demolition, and our government knew about it, allow it, and possibly orchestrated some of it in order to gain support of a nation when the US went to war in retaliation.

I was gonna' stand up and sing "I'm proud to be an American...God Bless the USA", but think I'll pass...

09/20/2006 05:15:20 AM · #134

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
... I do think that there is a common biological response to certain things - eg those by which we are revulsed, such as incest and cannibalism ...

Incest and cannibalism are not at all uncommon in the "biological" world -- it is only in certain "advanced" human societies where even a modest proposal to engage in such activities would be "unthinkable."

More clear cut examples of biological response in humans are not eating rotten flesh, vomit or scat - these responses are not universal (cf dogs and rabbits), but do not (as you imply) result from higher reasoning capacity or any innate sense of right and wrong.

There is also a biological persuasion to finding different mates with different ancestry. I cannot remember the details, but I have read about studies into attraction and smell that link attractiveness of smell to immunology markers: people tend to be attracted to smells of people who have a different set of immunity markers to their own. This may be part of the reason why children and parents and siblings do not tend to engage in intra-familial relationships. There is an obvious evolutionary advantage in this.

Of course, many biological tendencies have been formalised into strict rules (of law or social expectation) in our more modern sophisticated society, not least through religion.

PS - I love Swift!

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 05:16:25.

09/20/2006 05:21:03 AM · #135

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

While you can argue unitil your face is blue, there are universal moral rights and wrongs. They are not defined by individuals. If you choose to deny they exist and it makes you feel better that's your choice. You can also choose to believe that the world is flat.

The difference with flat earthers is that they can be proven to be factually incorrect.

Do you recognise that other people may have a different morality to you?

If so, do you acknowledge that you are no more guaranteed to be right than the others?

If so, do you acknowledge that if there is a universal right, then it is unknowable?

If it is unknowable, do you accept that it is ridiculous to make sweeping generalisations asserting that your morality represents a universal truth?

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 05:21:25.

09/20/2006 07:35:44 AM · #136

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

there are universal moral rights and wrongs.

Plato would agree. He defined in his "Meno" a world of absolutes, whereby everything that is something, shares some measure of identity with its purest form. Truth, red, round, bad, moral, etc. A description of any thing, for it to be accurate, must comply with an identifiable essence with the element possessed in the absolute form.

Thus, for any act to be moral, it must possess some element identifiable with the absolute of "moralness". To this end, I believe that routerguy666 has it nailed pretty close. Both sides of an event can claim "morality" of their actions, if the action contains some element consistent with the true essence of morality. The perception of the act, as routerguy666 has pointed out, is dependent on your view in relation to the time and place in which you view it. The truth is that just because someone claims that red is blue, does not make it so. If red does not contain the element of the absolute blue, then it cannont be.

The position that any act can be justified as moral to those commiting the act, seems a self evident truth to me. However, just because they believe the act to be moral, does not necessarily make it so.

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 09:59:27.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

09/20/2006 01:03:05 PM · #137

Originally posted by Flash:

However, just because they believe the act to be moral, does not necessarily make it so.

And the converse is that just because you believe it to be immoral, it does not make it so: if there is an objective morality, "they" are as likely to be right as you.

David Ey

Nikon D80

09/20/2006 01:58:46 PM · #138

I think I see whats wrong with our justice system.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/20/2006 02:03:59 PM · #139

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Flash:
However, just because they believe the act to be moral, does not necessarily make it so.

And the converse is that just because you believe it to be immoral, it does not make it so: if there is an objective morality, "they" are as likely to be right as you.

I believe that you are agreeing with me ;-]

Of course for either the moral or immoral to actually be moral or immoral, they would need to possess the "essence" of morality or immorality. The definitions of which, have consumed volumes of thoughtful writings throughout the ages.

If, however, one could clearly know/define the "absolute" morality, then an action could be judged according to that standard. Since the definition, typically is defined by those taking action (rather than by the absolute), then the risk of inaccuracy increases.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/20/2006 02:04:47 PM · #140

Originally posted by David Ey:

I think I see whats wrong with our justice system.

Don't leave us hanging... what would that be?

R.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/20/2006 09:34:45 PM · #141

Originally posted by BradP:

I haven't seen that one but if it's anything like the hack job that was Loose Change I'll be sorely disappointed. Let me ask you since you have watch it. Do they have audio recordings of a bunch of bombs going off BEFORE the tower started to fall?

If you do a google search for demolitions you can see videos of actual demolition jobs and one thing that is common in every one is a string of bombs goes off before the building even begins to fall and the sounds of the bombs going off can be heard from a great distance. Also, if you notice in controlled demolitions bombs are placed THROUGHOUT the building including ground level and to my knowledge there has been no proof shown that occurred at WTC. The only evidence Loose Change tries to pawn off as demolition bombs is flashes that they point to as the building is already coming down and they are all located way up the building where the top part is coming down. If WTC was a demolition job it was done unlike any other demolition job before it.

Also ask yourself, knowing this administration and all of it's screwups and whatnot how in the world would they pull off something like this so flawlessly? Just think of the logistics of putting something like this together and THEN keeping all those people quiet. Not only would this administration have to be involve but so would every level on down including the maintenance crews at WTC because surely they couldn't risk having their preparation discovered before 9/11. Is that really believable? If so how in the world could they not keep people like Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joseph Wilson, etc quiet but are able to keep everyone else quiet that knew about 9/11?

Edited for spelling.

Message edited by author 2006-09-21 01:42:31.

09/21/2006 09:35:42 AM · #142

Originally posted by Flash:

I believe that you are agreeing with me ;-]

Fear not... some disagreement is coming your way! ;->

Originally posted by Flash:

Of course for either the moral or immoral to actually be moral or immoral, they would need to possess the "essence" of morality or immorality. The definitions of which, have consumed volumes of thoughtful writings throughout the ages.

If, however, one could clearly know/define the "absolute" morality, then an action could be judged according to that standard. Since the definition, typically is defined by those taking action (rather than by the absolute), then the risk of inaccuracy increases.

I said that "if" there were such a thing as objective moral correctness (eg such as the "essence" theorised by Plato), then your philosophising might be right.

Your theory has some big problems, however.

First, it is a huge assumption that there is such a thing as essential morality, or objective moral correctness (I will call it a "moral standard"). Because morality is intangible, it is probably a necessary precursor to assume that there is some higher force that has determined what that moral standard might be (which has its own problematic arguments).

Secondly, as you identify (and as I suggested to Spazmo99), if such a moral standard existed, there is no way of knowing or defining it. We cannot assume that any moral stance that we may take conforms with the moral standard. It therefore has no practical application.

Given the infinite possibilities, I do not agree that the risk is one of increasing deviation from a moral standard: I would argue that, if such a moral standard existed (which I do not think), it is almost guaranteed that any stance that we adopt would be inaccurate.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/21/2006 12:19:16 PM · #143

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I said that "if" there were such a thing as objective moral correctness (eg such as the "essence" theorised by Plato), then your philosophising might be right.

Correct. If Plato's "world of absolutes" exists, then it would be possible to judge an action as either moral or immoral.

I tend to agree with Plato's theory due to my obeservations of common understandings of various words. The color RED can be observed by many different people and agreement can be obtained that an item is in fact red. Even if that item may have varying shades of red, there is some inherent "essence" with "redness" that allows each to conclude that this item is red. I believe likewise that terms like good, bad, strong, weak, can also be observed by multiple people and a concensus obtained on an action due to the actions "essesnce" of displaying elements consistent with the absolute of each.

However, I also, agree, that an individual or group can "see" the immorality of what another person or group views as moral. Thus, it truly depends on the definition of the term in the absolute, to fully decipher who is the more accurate.

Further, I believe that there is definable right and wrong. Moral and immoral. Good and bad. The apparent confusion on the side of one of two parties observing the same action, wherby one claims moral and the other claims immoral, lies in their inability to cleary understand the "essence" of each term. Their ability to breakdown the simplest elements that are common with all other things that are moral or immoral. As in the case of "redness", one must first discover the true essence, the basest element, that is common with all things red. Once that is known, then any thing can be judged on its redness.

Message edited by author 2006-09-21 12:29:08.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

09/21/2006 12:25:14 PM · #144

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I said that "if" there were such a thing as objective moral correctness (eg such as the "essence" theorised by Plato), then your philosophising might be right.

Correct. If Plato's "world of absolutes" exists, then it would be possible to judge an action as either moral or immoral.

I tend to agree with Plato's theory due to my obeservations of common understandings of various words. The color RED can be observed ny many different people and agreement can be obtained that an item is in fact red. Even if that item may have varying shades of red, there is some inherent "essence" with "redness" that allows each to conclude that this item is red. I believe likewise that terms like good, bad, strong, weak, can also be observed by multiple people and a concensus obtained on an action due to the actions "essesnce" of displaying elements consistent with the absolute of each.

However, I also, agree, that an individual or group can "see" the immorality of what another person or group views as moral. Thus, it truly depends on the definition of the term in the absolute, to fully decipher who is the more accurate.

Obviously, given the past posts, I would disagree. Your example about the color red is a good one. People can agree on what 'red' is because they can see it and the basis for determining its color is the chemical and electrical processing the human eye performs on that wavelength of reflected light. Critical to this - everyone has the exact same eyes when it comes to processing light. There is not a different eye now than 500 years ago, a different eye in humans living in Dubai versus Alabama, etc.

The same parameters do not apply to a group of individuals attempting to categorize the intangible constructs which are morals, ethics, etc where the mechanisms used to make these categorizations/judgements are entirely based upon things like when, where, why, etc, etc and can (and do) differ between individuals.

Message edited by author 2006-09-21 12:26:49.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/21/2006 12:38:47 PM · #145

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I added to my post while you were writing this. The reason I tend to believe that emotive terms like love, hate, right, wrong, moral, immoral can also be defined is based in part, on your reply. You state that the color red is definable (therefore judgeable), based on the eyes processing of light. The elements of processing are definable in my opinion and thus a more base breakdown and definition of the most basic parts that make up the "essence" of redness. If that is true, then I believe that any term can be broken down and thus becomes definable.

kawesttex

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

09/21/2006 12:41:57 PM · #146

Throw in one colorblind person and see if the definition of red is still the same.

09/21/2006 01:07:42 PM · #147

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Do you recognise that other people may have a different morality to you?

If so, do you acknowledge that you are no more guaranteed to be right than the others?

If so, do you acknowledge that if there is a universal right, then it is unknowable?

If it is unknowable, do you accept that it is ridiculous to make sweeping generalisations asserting that your morality represents a universal truth?

In order:

Yes, but I generally don't care what others think.

So?

Not necessarily, unprovable maybe, unknowable, no. But this is not the place to light that fire.

No, I do not, since as I have stated above that my ethics are knowable.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/21/2006 01:09:03 PM · #148

Originally posted by kawesttex:

Throw in one colorblind person and see if the definition of red is still the same.

Red is not defined by perception, it is defined by certain wavelengths of light. Blue is defined by different wavelengths. The two do not overlap.

Message edited by author 2006-09-21 13:11:21.

kawesttex

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

09/21/2006 01:13:23 PM · #149

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by kawesttex:
Throw in one colorblind person and see if the definition of red is still the same.

Red is not defined by perception, it is defined by certain wavelengths of light.

The colorblind person does not see the wavelengths, the colorblind person is only able to see and describe what he has become accustomed to in his life. Pretty much like having blinders on and not recognizing others points of view.