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
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: moral relativism

Post by phyllo »

He surrendered when faced with large* numbers of armed folks (police). Those in the store, were not armed.
He surrendered because he's now going to get publicity and "fame". His 15 minutes.

He will be able to keep promoting his cause.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 5:00 pm
They wouldn't run for their lives. :lol:
That's a big assumption that your chuckles don't support.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: moral relativism

Post by phyllo »

This isn't a video game.

You don't get to restart. You don't get multiple lives.

If you're dead, you're dead. If you're crippled, it's for the rest of your life.
Last edited by phyllo on Mon May 16, 2022 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 5:03 pm
He surrendered when faced with large* numbers of armed folks (police). Those in the store, were not armed.
He surrendered because he's now going to get publicity and "fame". His 15 minutes.

He will be able to keep promoting his cause.
That's your reasoning. Other folks will reason that's he a coward, or a cuckoo.

He's surely stupid. Just imagine ... he's in prison without his gun, and there's folks there who don't appreciate what he did.

Oh dear. What to do now.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 5:07 pm This isn't a video game.

You don't get to restart. You don't get multiple lives.

If you're dead, you're dead. If you're crippled, you're it's for the rest of your life.
Is this your idea of a news flash?
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 »

phyllo wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 5:00 pm
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:
some would run, sure

others would take cover and return fire

remember, no one, at the time, in the moment, knew he was armored or what he carried

all any, in the moment, woulda known is: somebody is shootin'

armed and trained bystanders woulda responded

you know, there's a reason these kinds of crimes happen where they do and not, for example, in Church Point, La.

we have a grocery -- Rod's -- where such a shooter cuttin' lose, as I say, would never leave the building alive

compare NY gun laws to La. gun laws and you'll see what I mean
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

The What If game.
It's not a video game, but we have been encouraged to imagine.

Just imagine … you hear shooting in another part of the store. You run out of the store, unless you're one of those rare breeds who run towards danger, without getting paid for it.

Just imagine … the shooting is close by, and you’ve hidden with your family as well as you can, and for the moment he is busy killing someone else. You have your weapon because everyone is armed.

You have your armour piercing round, because that has not been infringed.

The killer has body armour, because that right has been infringed (it’s not a weapon), and he bought it through the black market.

You have a clear shot.

Just imagine yourself cowering there, a wishin’ and a hopin’, when you can do something to stop him from finding your family.

Just imagine that, then imagine what kind of person that makes you. How could you live with yourself?

Well, that's a reaction tough for me to imagine in the USofA, and I imagine it is for many folks who cherish their one and only precious life, and those under their care.

Voila ... dynamic analysis.
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 »

We're overthinkin' it.

People will do as they do: some will run, some will hide, some will stand, some will die.

My point, insofar as it matters: more folks live if more folks are armed, trained, and competent.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 5:47 pm We're overthinkin' it.

People will do as they do: some will run, some will hide, some will stand, some will die.

My point, insofar as it matters: more folks live if more folks are armed, trained, and competent.
Given a constitution that does not infringe on the right to bear arms, you're correct.

Chalk up overthinkin' to active imaginations*.

California is where those religious folks tied up the shooter, not Takesus. Not this time. That’s significant. California does a lot of infringing, and yet the fella in California had a gun.

Why should only evil-doers be allowed to infringe?
Because they can infringe, there must be no God. What other conclusion could one, conclude?


* "Between the idea and the action lies the mischief."**
- J. Krishnamurti


**(I know I read this a long time ago, but don't know where.)
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 »

I don't usually post links, but this, in context, is worth watchin'.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DbS9XY9Gm ... b_imp_woyt
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 »

California is where those religious folks tied up the shooter
Not your average shit-in-the-streets resident, then.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

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:
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.
Come on, Henry in "owning" himself wants to live in a world where private citizens are legally permitted to buy and sell bazookas. Others, however, in "owning" themselves want to live in a world where private citizens are not permitted to buy and sell bazookas. Now, if, in America, Henry's political convictions prevailed and Payton Gendron had taken a bazooka into that supermarket, how many more black folks could he have killed? Killed because in "owning" himself Gendron was also a flagrant racist.
Walker wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:45 pm If the killer was armed, other civilians would also be armed with weapons of their own, because their rights would also not be infringed.
Right, a world in which both the shooters and those being shot at are equally armed with bazookas. In Henry's head, of course, that is all perfectly in sync with following the dictates of Reason and Nature. Only from Henry's perspective those who don't follow his own dictates here are wrong, dumb and diseased. Not to mention morons, asswipes, pinheads, degenerates, idiots, deficients, nutjobs, and loons.
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 »

Now, if, in America, Henry's political convictions prevailed and Payton Gendron had taken a bazooka into that supermarket, how many more black folks could he have killed?
In an America where it was commonsensical to own and be proficient with firearms: he'd be dead.
from Henry's perspective those who don't follow his own dictates here are wrong, dumb and diseased. Not to mention morons, asswipes, pinheads, degenerates, idiots, deficients, nutjobs, and loons.
Or just wrong-headed, yep.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

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.

Again, this is how he "thinks" this through. If Payton Gendron wanted a bazooka, found a supplier, met his price, and had his bazooka, he could then have taken that to the supermarket. Or if he wanted grenades or mortar rounds or a tank?

The question then becomes in any particular community, state or nation what ought the laws be in regard to buying and selling these military grade weapons to private citizens? Ought some dictator or philosopher king be permitted to impose his or her own rendition of might makes right, or right makes might?

Or, in a democracy, ought private citizens in "owning" themselves existentially and being predisposed to conflicting moral and political prejudices here, be able through elections to put into power politicians more in sync with their own subjective biases.

Which I root in dasein in a No God world and Henry roots in objectivism in a God world. Just a particularly peculiar God that creates the world but then splits. Leaving it up to us mere mortals to grapple with what His own understanding of Reason and Nature might be in regard to owning bazookas.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 6:48 pm
Now, if, in America, Henry's political convictions prevailed and Payton Gendron had taken a bazooka into that supermarket, how many more black folks could he have killed?
In an America where it was commonsensical to own and be proficient with firearms: he'd be dead.
Indeed, I imagine that if private citizens exchanged bazooka rounds, rounds designed to actually penetrate tanks, a lot of folks might end up dead. Or if private citizens were able to buy and sell grenades and 50 caliber machine guns? Same thing. Lots and lots and lots and lots of dead people.
from Henry's perspective those who don't follow his own dictates here are wrong, dumb and diseased. Not to mention morons, asswipes, pinheads, degenerates, idiots, deficients, nutjobs, and loons.
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 6:48 pmOr just wrong-headed, yep.
Note to Satyr:

One of yours, right?
Post Reply