|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2007 : 12:33:10 [Permalink]
|
I am just stating that they are erroneously applying ethics.
|
From what little I know about it, ethics applies to behavior, not to emotions.
If someone tells me they know more about that and that I'm wrong on that part of the argument, I'll have to bow out of that discussion.
However, once applied, I can't see how emotions can logically or reasonably be called unethical. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/19/2007 12:34:04 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 14:19:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
I understand that people come to these conclusions often. I am just stating that they are erroneously applying ethics. |
And I am saying that you come to that conclusion through your own ethical filter, and not because definitions of ethics specifically exclude applying ethical standards to feelings.
Even with Gorgo's definition, "Emotions are the result of thoughts and perceptions," emotions become, at their most basic, a part of the stimulus/response behavior of a brain. And if ethics only apply to one's behavior, then ethics would have to be applicable to emotions. Emotions would be the brain's "action" in response to some stimuli.
The definitions marf posted point towards ethical judgements being applicable to actions, but they don't specify whether they mean physical or mental activity. In a culture in which one is taught to honor thy father and thy mother, is there an ethical difference between thinking "I hate my mother" and saying "I hate my mother?" Does it make a difference whether you're alone or in a crowd when you say it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 16:47:10 [Permalink]
|
| If an organ's actions are to be judged as ethical or unethical, then is my pancreas unethical, if it secretes too much or too little insulin at any given time? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 17:49:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
As are the condescending remarks, accusations of lying, accusations of deliberate intellectual dishonesty, and so on, from others here.
I see no reason to be polite in the face of such. |
I apologized for my condescending remarks when you pointed them out to me; marfknox explained how the accusations of lying weren't intended to be interpreted so; and I explained I was not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, deliberate or otherwise. Will you accept these apologies and explanations? Are there other instances in which you have been slighted? I will immediately apologize if I have been unjustly rude, or will explain if no offense was intended. I am certain most here will do the same. I'm done here.
The abject stupidity or willful ignorance that allows you two to continue to ignore the topic of this thread is more than I want to deal with. |
I can empathize with your frustration; however, are you certain of this dichotomy? I must agree with Dude or be stupid? If you stand unswerving in this position, I guess there really is nothing more for you to contribute. The topic, as posted by B10, is "Can feelings be unethical?"
The answer is simple: Yes. |
I still disagree.| Nothing can be universally excluded from ethical considerations without implying an objective standard of right and wrong. |
I still think this is a non sequitur. Please note I am not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, I am telling you that I do not see a connection between your premise and your conclusion. | Why you two insist on turning this into a debate about practical ethical applications, I do not know. |
This has always been about whether ethics can be applied to certain things. Nobody is turning the discussion into that: it's how it started. | Nor do I, now, give a rats ass why. |
You have been saying this since Page 1. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 18:25:21 [Permalink]
|
| apologized for my condescending remarks when you pointed them out to me; |
Can respect for other humans and oneself be considered ethical? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 19:28:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
dv said:
| Your hyper-aggressiveness is getting pretty damn tedious. |
As are the condescending remarks, accusations of lying, accusations of deliberate intellectual dishonesty, and so on, from others here.
I see no reason to be polite in the face of such.
|
Then stop responding to those people who hack you off. I still don't agree with some of the charges you've leveled against others here.
Really, Dude, if you can no longer conduct yourself in polite debate because people say things that you percieve as offensive to you, then stop responding to them. If you think everyone is doing it to you, then find somewhere else to go.
I've had it, Dude. No more.
There is the old story of Ghandhi walking through the streets where someone was verbally abusing him. Ghandhi ignored the person and when asked about it, he asked, "if one brings a present to a party and the host declines to accept it, to whom does the present belong?"
The answer being the person who brought the present. "Then," Ghandhi said, "I decline to accept the abuse."
I'll share a little here with you, Dude. There was something going on in my own life that made Gorgo's argumentation style piss me off. I started to really get passive agressive towards him and called him a few names in frustration. How I dealt with it was to ignore him. Worked out fine.
So here's the official stuff for you.
Moderator: Dude, cease and desist using foul language and namecalling in your argumentation. We have darn few rules and we've let you go on long enough.
I won't lock this topic quite yet because it still has a potential for reasonable and polite discussion on the topic. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 19:55:10 [Permalink]
|
Moderator: Dude, cease and desist using foul language and namecalling in your argumentation. We have darn few rules and we've let you go on long enough.
|
Define "foul" language and "namecalling".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 19:58:51 [Permalink]
|
Because, ya know, I just want to know where you are going to draw the line.
Is it ok to imply someone is a liar? Or do you have to just come out and call them a liar to be going to far.
What specific words are you going to decide are "foul", and are you going to apply these restrictions equally to all board members?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 21:35:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Because, ya know, I just want to know where you are going to draw the line.
Is it ok to imply someone is a liar? Or do you have to just come out and call them a liar to be going to far.
What specific words are you going to decide are "foul", and are you going to apply these restrictions equally to all board members?
|
You know Dude, this site has always been very frugal in its moderation. We do not want to moderate with a heavy hand. Much of the moderation, especially where it comes to abusive language or behavior is at the moderators discretion. If it wasn't done that way, SFN would have a whole different feel to it. We understand that our members are adults and we try to treat them as such. This site comes equipped with a bad word filter that we have never turned on. Go over to the JREF forum and see what happens when you call someone “a fucking asshole.” Go see if you are even allowed on the forum to discuss it a week later. As it happens, we have very good moderators who know when to act.
You have been given more passes then any new person would ever get. Does it never occur to you that if you think you are the recipient of a perceived abuse, you just might first ask the person what they intended by their remark? Or, respond by pointing out that a slight does not further a debate? Must you respond to every perceived slight by topping it?
I'll tell you this. It goes too far when we get complaints about your posts by people who are not even debating you. That's a pretty good clue.
Unfortunately for SFN, the staff is actually in a discussion about rule changes with regard to behavior. So I guess you will get more specific answers to your questions once we work that out. And that's a bummer because not too very long ago we had no reason to have that talk. And you were a member back then too. In fact, you are an OG. Since you have been around so long, maybe you can explain to us why things have become so much more hostile then they once were, because we don't really know why. We just know we have to do something about it.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 22:32:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Because, ya know, I just want to know where you are going to draw the line.
Is it ok to imply someone is a liar? Or do you have to just come out and call them a liar to be going to far.
What specific words are you going to decide are "foul", and are you going to apply these restrictions equally to all board members? |
Oh, get the hell off the cross, Dude.
You know damn well that you've crossed the line several times in the last few months and not received any sort of official sanction for it until you'd done so repeatedly, so just because we've refused to carve the line in stone doesn't mean you get to tapdance all over it.
And you've been here long enough to know how flexible our moderation is. You've been the beneficiary of our "hands-off" policy for over three years now. Here on SFN, you've had carte blanche to use whatever words you wish to describe the woo-woos, nutcases and outright whackos of the larger world. It's when you turn such venom on your fellow long-term, not-generally-nutty forum members that I begin to have a problem with it.
At this point I'll say that while marf's opening salvo in this thread was an extraordinarily hostile and sarcastic strawman (at best) that seemed to come out of the blue, it appears to me that you, Dude, are the only person here who saw it as even implying that you're a liar. I think you need to seriously consider the possibility that your interpretation of her words was mistaken, because I can tell you that your insistant discussion of that particular point will never benefit you. I doubt you can put together a set of sound premises and valid logical steps that ends in "therefore, she was calling me a liar" that doesn't assume something about her mindset that you cannot know for fact.
You know, I can't help but draw parallels between your problems with this "liar" thing, and b'gal's incorrect insistence that I was angry because she wouldn't debate me. And for me to tell you that you're acting towards marf in any way like b'gal was acting towards me, Dude, it ought to cause some major alarm bells to go off in your head.
But that's only a minor part of the larger picture.
Really, the reason why there is no one-size-fits-all moderation policy is that we recognize that people are different from one another. marf and Boron both have a history of being non-dogmatic and receptive to good argumentation. You should cut them more slack than you'd offer to the first-post "I can prove Einstein was wrong" dogmatic contrarian. Call it the "SFN ethic" if you will.
They're certainly not arguing their positions because they're stupid or willfully ignorant, Dude. There are probably several more pages of reasonable, non-antagonistic thread to get through before such problems will truly be evident. And with luck, by then, some sort of meeting-of-the-minds will have occured because the discussion will have stopped being so enragingly personal. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 22:34:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
If an organ's actions are to be judged as ethical or unethical, then is my pancreas unethical, if it secretes too much or too little insulin at any given time? |
As soon as you can find a real-world example of a culture in which diabetes is immoral - like I can find real-world examples of people finding certain feelings immoral - then yes, you can judge your pancreas to be unethical. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 00:30:57 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
At this point I'll say that while marf's opening salvo in this thread was an extraordinarily hostile and sarcastic strawman (at best) that seemed to come out of the blue, it appears to me that you, Dude, are the only person here who saw it as even implying that you're a liar....
I doubt you can put together a set of sound premises and valid logical steps that ends in "therefore, she was calling me a liar" that doesn't assume something about her mindset that you cannot know for fact.
|
I don't need to.
I said:
| I'm not really interested in a conversation about the definition of ethics. |
Her response was:
| Why, so you can define it the way you see fit and end the discussion there? |
She challenges my internal motivation when I say I am uninterested in having this conversation. The implication is that I am lying about why I am uninterested in this debate, that I am being dishonest by stating that this subject hold no interest for me. If there is some interpretation of her statement that doesn't question my integrity, please, share it.
Then, instead of asking me why I was uninterested, she fabricates a reason for me, an intellectually dishonest one, at that. So she calls me a lair twice in one sentence.
Her general attitude on these boards, and my experience in "debating" with her, tells me that it is futile to try and engage her in a rational conversation about why she would fabricate an intellectually dishonest motivation for me. She would just deny any fault (as she has done in this thread now) Her open hostility and deliberately insulting debate "style", combined with a stubborn refusal to admit error or flaw, all inform me that the best method of dealing with her attack is to meet her aggression with more aggression.
Oh, get the hell off the cross, Dude.
|
I was being sarcastic.
You know, I can't help but draw parallels between your problems with this "liar" thing, and b'gal's incorrect insistence that I was angry because she wouldn't debate me. And for me to tell you that you're acting towards marf in any way like b'gal was acting towards me, Dude, it ought to cause some major alarm bells to go off in your head.
|
Again, if assigning an intellectually dishonest motivation to me isn't the equivalent (or so close as to make no practical difference) of calling me a liar, then I need someone to explain how it isn't.
| marf and Boron both have a history of being non-dogmatic and receptive to good argumentation. You should cut them more slack than you'd offer to the first-post "I can prove Einstein was wrong" dogmatic contrarian. |
I get bitchslapped at the starting gate of this thread... yet s |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 03:46:46 [Permalink]
|
then yes, you can judge your pancreas to be unethical.
|
First, let me make it clear that I've already conceded that point, if you're claiming to have the answer, as I'm not an expert there. But, I also think you've agreed that it makes no sense to judge one's emotions as unethical. And, it seems that you agree that ethics do not really apply to pancreases or brains, you're just saying that people mistakenly do think that way. Or, do I have that wrong?
Having said that, people feel guilty about what their pancreases do. Some people think they should always be healthy, just like some people think their brains should always be peaceful. I know I can be very wrong here, so do not hesitate to correct me, but it seems that if one can logically conclude that if "my brain should be peaceful" is statement about ethics, then "my pancreas should be peaceful" is also a statement about ethics. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/20/2007 03:48:55 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 03:52:50 [Permalink]
|
"I hate my mother" and saying "I hate my mother?" Does it make a difference whether you're alone or in a crowd when you say it?
|
I'm not sure why either would be considered unethical.
I think most people would even say that it's not unethical to say, "I'm going to kill my mother." It may be stupid if you're standing in a police station, but it is not even necessarily a precursor to unethical behavior. Just because you feel frustrated enough to say something, doesn't mean you're going to act on it. In fact, after saying it, you may realize that you don't really mean it. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2007 : 06:34:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dave_W said:At this point I'll say that while marf's opening salvo in this thread was an extraordinarily hostile and sarcastic strawman (at best) that seemed to come out of the blue, it appears to me that you, Dude, are the only person here who saw it as even implying that you're a liar....
I doubt you can put together a set of sound premises and valid logical steps that ends in "therefore, she was calling me a liar" that doesn't assume something about her mindset that you cannot know for fact. |
I don't need to.
I said:| I'm not really interested in a conversation about the definition of ethics. |
Her response was:| Why, so you can define it the way you see fit and end the discussion there? |
She challenges my internal motivation when I say I am uninterested in having this conversation. The implication is that I am lying about why I am uninterested in this debate, that I am being dishonest by stating that this subject hold no interest for me. If there is some interpretation of her statement that doesn't question my integrity, please, share it. |
Her statement was a non-sequitor. She didn't "challenge" anything about your motivation, because you didn't state anything about your motivation for your disinterest. She made something up in the face of a total lack of information. You might consider it to be lying about you, but it's not calling you a liar. You would have had to have said something about your motivation for that to be the case.| Then, instead of asking me why I was uninterested, she fabricates a reason for me, an intellectually dishonest one, at that. So she calls me a lair twice in one sentence. |
And I'm pretty sure that's not what she meant. That's what I was talking about with making assumptions about what's going on in her head.| Her general attitude on these boards, and my experience in "debating" with her, tells me that it is futile to try and engage her in a rational conversation about why she would fabricate an intellectually dishonest motivation for me. She would just deny any fault (as she has done in this thread now) Her open hostility and deliberately insulting debate "style", combined with a stubborn refusal to admit error or flaw, all inform me that the best method of dealing with her attack is to meet her aggression with more aggression. |
Has that done you or anyone else any measurable good? Seems to me that the direct result has been more and more people having a problem with you, Dude.It wasn't obvious.| I get bitchslapped at the starting gate of this thread... yet somehow I should be cutting marf some slack? I have to disagree with your assessment here Dave. |
I know you do, because you're conflating marf calling you a liar with marf disagreeing with you about the definition of ethics. I was talking about the latter: that part of the discussion that directly prompted your characterization of marf and Boron as willfully ignorant and stupid. I believe that marf owes you an apology for her comment on your motivation, but if you're sure that that's not going to happen, then what good does holding a grudge and abusing her in other parts of the discussion do?
...| But not when its marf. She has as much as admitted, in previous threads, that intellectual bullying is her "debate style", and she lets no opportunity pass to insult me. |
Well, at least she hasn't started a thread titled "Dood suckxorz!!1!11!!!" yet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Can Feelings be Unethical?
