moral relativism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

Say you are a farmer who has not the resources to dig his own deep water well. If you combine your resources with those of other nearby farmers you can all have fresh clean water.
Absolutely. Free men cooperating to accomplish a goal that might be difficult or impossible for any one alone to accomplish.

This is force multiplication, not negation of self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance.

And: there's no need for the ministrations of The State.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by DPMartin »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 12:28 am
DPMartin wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 3:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:40 pm

Chaos is opposition and we see opposition occur in the world and people still existing through it as agents of said chaos.
opposition is rebellion, or self defense, or anything of that nature, chaos is understood as no order at all.
Opposition is an absence of order as there is an absence of unity (unity is order).
don't be a putts, the word chaos is used to mean no order at all, instead of opposition which is used for a form of resistance, chaos can be with out opposition. actually opposition is a form of order.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: moral relativism

Post by Advocate »

[quote=DPMartin post_id=572999 time=1652635389 user_id=13848]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=572202 time=1652311718 user_id=14533]
[quote=DPMartin post_id=570963 time=1651848217 user_id=13848]

opposition is rebellion, or self defense, or anything of that nature, chaos is understood as no order at all.
[/quote]

Opposition is an absence of order as there is an absence of unity (unity is order).
[/quote]

don't be a putts, the word chaos is used to mean no order at all, instead of opposition which is used for a form of resistance, chaos can be with out opposition. actually opposition is a form of order.
[/quote]

Chaos cannot be in opposition to anything because it has no form of it's own, no attributes except lack of specificity or definition.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 3:38 pm
Say you are a farmer who has not the resources to dig his own deep water well. If you combine your resources with those of other nearby farmers you can all have fresh clean water.
Absolutely. Free men cooperating to accomplish a goal that might be difficult or impossible for any one alone to accomplish.

This is force multiplication, not negation of self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance.

And: there's no need for the ministrations of The State.
So do you stipulate the size of scope of cooperative efforts? I gather you dislike federations of smaller states and also smaller states such as obtains in the US. What would be the maximum numbers of farmers or the maximum duration of their cooperative accord?

See, if these three cooperating farmers got the well dug without doing away with each other the three of them may have a chin wag now and again about mutually lending each other their horse teams to get all the ploughing done quicker by bigger teams. May be one of the wives gets to be loaned out as a midwife or bone setter. Maybe one of them sets up a flour mill and bakery with rules about what he will charge for a standard loaf. Then another of the wives is an efficient brewer and sells to the others at a reasonable price with a few tables and chairs at her premises.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

iambiguous wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:43 am
Meanwhile let's all try to imagine the carnage up in Buffalo today if the shooter had used a bazooka instead. :shock:
That’s what’s called static analysis. You change one variable, but none other, and then make an erroneous conclusion. It’s rather disingenuous. It’s weak. It's a mental experiment that ignores obvious, important causation. It’s insulting to intelligent people like hq.*

If the killer was armed, other civilians would also be armed with weapons of their own, because their rights would also not be infringed.

After the first shot, or even if he aimed the damn thing in public, then they would kill bazooka man, or disarm him and tie him up, like those religious folks did in Texas ... although that maniac in Takesus didn't pull out a concealed bazooka.

Knowing that everyone is armed, makes everyone really polite.


* It also doesn't measure up to your capacity, from what I've read.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: moral relativism

Post by phyllo »

If the killer was armed, other civilians would also be armed with weapons of their own, because their rights would also not be infringed.

After the first shot, or even if he aimed the damn thing in public, then they would kill bazooka man, or disarm him and tie him up, like those religious folks did in Texas ... although that maniac in Takesus didn't pull out a concealed bazooka.
Most people are not going to take assault rifles or shot guns to the grocery store. They're not going to be wearing body armor.

A security guard took some shots at him but did not penetrate his vest.

The idea that armed folks are going to easily stop a prepared and determined assailant is a myth. He has a major advantage in terms of weapons, gear and the element of surprise.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

Walker wrote: If the killer was armed, other civilians would also be armed with weapons of their own, because their rights would also not be infringed.

After the first shot, or even if he aimed the damn thing in public, then they would kill bazooka man, or disarm him and tie him up, like those religious folks did in Texas ... although that maniac in Takesus didn't pull out a concealed bazooka.
phillo wrote:Most people are not going to take assault rifles or shot guns to the grocery store. They're not going to be wearing body armor.

A security guard took some shots at him but did not penetrate his vest.

The idea that armed folks are going to easily stop a prepared and determined assailant is a myth. He has a major advantage in terms of weapons, gear and the element of surprise.
Walker wrote:Who said anything about easy? As long as we're playing what if, I imagine killing someone isn't easy for most folks.

If everyone is armed, someone would be close enough for a head shot.

Remember those bank robbers years ago? I think it was Hollywood, Ca. Full body armor, automatic weapons. The robber stood there taking round after round and he just kept going, kept shooting. AK47. I think he was wounded in the frackus. The cops were outgunned. They should have had a bazooka.

(edited for quotes ... thrice!) :roll:
Last edited by Walker on Mon May 16, 2022 4:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

What would be the maximum numbers of farmers or the maximum duration of their cooperative accord?
That, B, is up to those involved.
See, if these three cooperating farmers got the well dug without doing away with each other the three of them may have a chin wag now and again about mutually lending each other their horse teams to get all the ploughing done quicker by bigger teams. May be one of the wives gets to be loaned out as a midwife or bone setter. Maybe one of them sets up a flour mill and bakery with rules about what he will charge for a standard loaf. Then another of the wives is an efficient brewer and sells to the others at a reasonable price with a few tables and chairs at her premises.
Yes, and?
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: moral relativism

Post by phyllo »

Who said anything about easy? As long as we're playing what if, I imagine killing someone isn't easy for most folks.
You did. You said that he would be taken out after one shot : "After the first shot, or even if he aimed the damn thing in public, then they would kill bazooka man, or disarm him and tie him up, like those religious folks did in Texas ..."
If everyone is armed, someone would be close enough for a head shot.
Sure. :roll:
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

Walker wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:45 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:43 am
Meanwhile let's all try to imagine the carnage up in Buffalo today if the shooter had used a bazooka instead. :shock:
That’s what’s called static analysis. You change one variable, but none other, and then make an erroneous conclusion. It’s rather disingenuous. It’s weak. It's a mental experiment that ignores obvious, important causation. It’s insulting to intelligent people like hq.*

If the killer was armed, other civilians would also be armed with weapons of their own, because their rights would also not be infringed.

After the first shot, or even if he aimed the damn thing in public, then they would kill bazooka man, or disarm him and tie him up, like those religious folks did in Texas ... although that maniac in Takesus didn't pull out a concealed bazooka.

Knowing that everyone is armed, makes everyone really polite.


* It also doesn't measure up to your capacity, from what I've read.
👍

-----

What happened in Buffalo was awful, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with my stated position in this thread.

As I say: if I want a bazooka, can find a supplier, can meet his price, I'll have a bazooka.

All the mass shootings in the world changes my position not one bit.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:19 pm
Who said anything about easy? As long as we're playing what if, I imagine killing someone isn't easy for most folks.
You did. You said that he would be taken out after one shot : "After the first shot, or even if he aimed the damn thing in public, then they would kill bazooka man, or disarm him and tie him up, like those religious folks did in Texas ..."
If everyone is armed, someone would be close enough for a head shot.
Sure. :roll:
Good point. You don't like the word, "easy", which apparently, is the crux of your comment.

How was he taken out?
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:22 pm
Walker wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:45 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:43 am
Meanwhile let's all try to imagine the carnage up in Buffalo today if the shooter had used a bazooka instead. :shock:
That’s what’s called static analysis. You change one variable, but none other, and then make an erroneous conclusion. It’s rather disingenuous. It’s weak. It's a mental experiment that ignores obvious, important causation. It’s insulting to intelligent people like hq.*

If the killer was armed, other civilians would also be armed with weapons of their own, because their rights would also not be infringed.

After the first shot, or even if he aimed the damn thing in public, then they would kill bazooka man, or disarm him and tie him up, like those religious folks did in Texas ... although that maniac in Takesus didn't pull out a concealed bazooka.

Knowing that everyone is armed, makes everyone really polite.


* It also doesn't measure up to your capacity, from what I've read.
👍

-----

What happened in Buffalo was awful, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with my stated position in this thread.

As I say: if I want a bazooka, can find a supplier, can meet his price, I'll have a bazooka.

All the mass shootings in the world changes my position not one bit.
I imagine ...

I imagine that an armour piercing round would go through body armour like a hot knife through butter.

No need to waste a bazooka round.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

Walker wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:34 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:22 pm
Walker wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:45 pm
That’s what’s called static analysis. You change one variable, but none other, and then make an erroneous conclusion. It’s rather disingenuous. It’s weak. It's a mental experiment that ignores obvious, important causation. It’s insulting to intelligent people like hq.*

If the killer was armed, other civilians would also be armed with weapons of their own, because their rights would also not be infringed.

After the first shot, or even if he aimed the damn thing in public, then they would kill bazooka man, or disarm him and tie him up, like those religious folks did in Texas ... although that maniac in Takesus didn't pull out a concealed bazooka.

Knowing that everyone is armed, makes everyone really polite.


* It also doesn't measure up to your capacity, from what I've read.
👍

-----

What happened in Buffalo was awful, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with my stated position in this thread.

As I say: if I want a bazooka, can find a supplier, can meet his price, I'll have a bazooka.

All the mass shootings in the world changes my position not one bit.
I imagine ...

I imagine that an armour piercing round would go through body armour like a hot knife through butter.

No need to waste a bazooka round.
If such a well-armed, well-armored, person woulda went to town in a grocery where anyone, everyone, was armed (the lil old lady with a derringer, the stock boy with a plastic glock, the karen with a 22, the mid-aged guy with a 38 snubbie, and so on): he woulda killed far less and he'd have never left the store alive.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:51 pm
Walker wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:34 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:22 pm

👍

-----

What happened in Buffalo was awful, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with my stated position in this thread.

As I say: if I want a bazooka, can find a supplier, can meet his price, I'll have a bazooka.

All the mass shootings in the world changes my position not one bit.
I imagine ...

I imagine that an armour piercing round would go through body armour like a hot knife through butter.

No need to waste a bazooka round.
If such a well-armed, well-armored, person woulda went to town in a grocery where anyone, everyone, was armed (the lil old lady with a derringer, the stock boy with a plastic glock, the karen with a 22, the mid-aged guy with a 38 snubbie, and so on): he woulda killed far less and he'd have never left the store alive.
Yep.

I was finally able to get on google.

He surrendered when faced with large* numbers of armed folks (police). Those in the store, were not armed.


* Although, "large" is a relative term, like "easy." :roll:
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: moral relativism

Post by phyllo »

If such a well-armed, well-armored, person woulda went to town in a grocery where anyone, everyone, was armed (the lil old lady with a derringer, the stock boy with a plastic glock, the karen with a 22, the mid-aged guy with a 38 snubbie, and so on): he woulda killed far less and he'd have never left the store alive.
Yeah. Cause all those people want to be in a gunfight with a guy wearing body armor and firing an assault rifle at them.

They wouldn't run for their lives. :lol:
Post Reply