Enigma, your behavior is quite troll-like.

Please state what you are in favor of and why.

Don't post anywhere else until this thread is resolved; we will delete anything else you try to post.

If I am unable to defend my self I will not post in this thread.

Hitler and Stalin were socialists. Agree or disagree?

And if they weren't socialists, what were they?

I will not continue under these conditions.

See, Inspector?

Told you he was a liar.

Note also the pure marxism of talking about capitalists and capitalist classes when he really means big business.

State capitalist has to be one of the stupidest terms I have ever heard.

Note the chain of fallacies. Business is capitalist, even when it supports German Socialism. Therefore, when the businesses supported Hitler, that means taht Hitler is capitalist. Because business just is capitalist. It just is. And that is the starting point for some pure Marxist dishonest ranting.

You deleted my responce, whats up son dont like to see somweone actualy argue back? Pussy or something?


LOL I kick haggis hunters ass in the Marx's secret thread so he deletes my posts.

What a pussy.

Haggis, let him post in this thread and this thread only. Delete everything else.

Now, enigma, if you would be so kind...?

Lie!Lie!Lie!

I am Lennox Lewis to your Mike Tyson.

Lie away!

Ha the pussy deletes my post, and then accuses me of lying!

Back peddle boy.

Anyhow, inspector what things would you like me to say I am in favour of?

Elaborate please.

Edit: -

Ok you say that you are busy, so I will try and "guess" what you want me to explain.

1. I dont think that Hitler held any specific ideology, or political/economic alignment, he simply told people what they wanted to here. So his ideology can not be guaged by his actions or his writisgs, as they are filled with contradictions.

2. I think that Stalin was a "State capitalist" or "bureaucratic collectivist", not a capitalist, like you and not a socialist like Owen. There is a huge differance.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/State%20capitalist

3. My economic/political ideology is not a static thing. I do not like to say that I am "X" ideology, as tomorrow I may be "Y".

4. I think that modern attitudes towards economics are in many cases responcible for the massive poverty which exists in the world, and that we in our richer positions should do more to help third world countries develop.

5. I am in favour of teaching all children both leftwing and rightwing ideology, so that they may understand both arguments.

6. I have what you would probably describe as "liberal" social ideology, In that I think gun control is a good idea, I dont want to ban abortion, I dont want to see gay marrage illegal, etc.

7. I am an athiest.

8. I am in favour of religious tolerance however.

9. I am not in favour of fascism.

I deleted your posts in that other thread, not Haggis. I warned you that until we finish up here, you should not post elsewhere.

Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics.

You need more maturity Enigma.

Get it right round ye! :badass:

Metaphysics

A branch of philosophy involving things like abstract thought and the nature of reality and the mind... and I dont understand it or really want to understand it.

Epistemology

Another boring branch of philosophy, which is something to do with studing the nature of knowldege, again I dont understand it or want to. I dont like philosophy.

Ethics

Ethics are subjective, it depends on your society, and your beliefs. I find things like exploitation unethical, but that does not mean that others have to or even want to agree with me.

Politics

See point 6.

LOL, considering that you are the ones taking me, a perfectly reasonable member, who was breaking no rules, and then insulting me and interrogating me, and attacking my views without ever bothing to even try and argue them. Then when I actually dare to argue back in this thread, you delete the evidence, and then accuse me of lying.

You still need more maturity, Mr Poopypants.

I've seen your posts before. You appear to inhabit a curious world where things are not what they are but something else as well.

You say things which are Marxist but you are not a Marxist.

You say that Stalin was a state capitalist and magic up a defintion to back you up which is no more a definition than Bill Clinton is a rastafarian.

You propose socialism but then pretend that there will be no state.

You proved yourself a liar long ago.

You say things which are Marxist but you are not a Marxist.

Nope, you just fail to understand what marxism is....

You say that Stalin was a state capitalist and magic up a defintion to back you up which is no more a definition than Bill Clinton is a rastafarian.

What you read my link, and because you cant argue with it, you attack me with lame sarcasm. Your going to go far...

You propose socialism but then pretend that there will be no state.

Where? I never once claimed to be an anarchist.

You proved yourself a liar long ago.

Nope, you just proved your an idiot, who doesnt uderstand basic politics a long time ago.

"You say things which are Marxist but you are not a Marxist.

Nope, you just fail to understand what marxism is...."

And no explanation of what marxism is. Nice and convenient.

"You say that Stalin was a state capitalist and magic up a defintion to back you up which is no more a definition than Bill Clinton is a rastafarian.

What you read my link, and because you cant argue with it, you attack me with lame sarcasm. Your going to go far..."

Can't argue? Nope.

There is no such thing as state capitalism. Only laissez-faire capitalism. Anything else is either interventionism or socialism.

"You propose socialism but then pretend that there will be no state.

Where? I never once claimed to be an anarchist."

Tell us what system you do propose then.

You certainly did post that and I deleted it.

"
You proved yourself a liar long ago.

Nope, you just proved your an idiot, who doesnt uderstand basic politics a long time ago."

You don't even understand the meaning of words and you have nothing to back you posts up.

Mr Poopypants.

And no explanation of what marxism is.

I have explained what Marxism is on previous occasions. You probably saw that you were wrong and deleted the post... a usual abuse of mod powers I would expect from a pussy like you.

Can't argue? Nope.

Then why dont you, your a liar, boy.

There is no such thing as state capitalism.

Your an idiot, their is and I have provided links and definitions to prove it. You just cant understand that it has no relevance what so ever to do with state capitalism... As usual with imbaciles.

Tell us what system you do propose then.

Why should I? What are you going to do about it? Ban me? Ohh wait your not an admin are you? Oops, you cant to jack shit boy, until our illustrious leaders turns up, or one of his admins.

You don't even understand the meaning of words and you have nothing to back you posts up.

I have backed up and proved every thing I have said with quotes and sources. You on the other hand are an idiot, who has been proved wrong on numerous occasions, and then deleted my posts to cover your tracks.

Back peddle bitch.

I will have to snip out all the irrelevant drivel from your previous post before I reply to it.

Hmm, I appear to have snipped your entire post.

Why do you find "exploitation" to be unethical? Ethics assumes that there is an ethical goal in mind... What is your ethical goal? Altruism? Egoism?

What is point 6?

And just stop it with the childish bickering and name-calling!

Get knotted, bignose!

Not you.

Sorry Bignose! :D

No problem.

But my nose isn't big. :)

Why do you find "exploitation" to be unethical?

By using a position of privelidge to gain an advantage over others at their own expense, I believe is wrong and immoral. But like I said morality is subjective.

What is your ethical goal? Altruism?

I suppose in a way it is a rather selfless belief, though I never really considered it.

What is point 6?

One of the previous posts I made in this thread, in responce to your question.

6. I have what you would probably describe as "liberal" social ideology, In that I think gun control is a good idea, I dont want to ban abortion, I dont want to see gay marrage illegal, etc.

And just stop it with the childish bickering and name-calling!

Listen up mate, I never started this shit, you did. I co-operated and listed some of my views and was insulted by that imbasile. If you want this childish name calling to end, then leash your bitch.

If morality is subjective, then it is moral to "exploit" for everyone who believes it is moral, and immoral for everyone who doesn't. Why is your view right and ours wrong ? Of course, you could just replace "exploit" with "enslave" or "murder" as a demonstration of how far moral relaitivism will get you.

Well said, Tungsten.

To add further to that thought, if ethics are entirely subjective, then why should we care what you think about politics, Enigma? If your political ideas are based entirely on your subjective and senseless ethics, then why are your arbitrary assertions any better than the next man's?

Oh, and I'm afraid that Haggis is a force unto himself. Quite out of my control. But if you refrain from nasty comments, he might calm down...

Oh... he's not gonna like that. :blink:

Your funeral, man.

If morality is subjective, then it is moral to "exploit" for everyone who believes it is moral, and immoral for everyone who doesn't.

I disagree, hense the reason I said it is immoral.


My point is that morality is subjective, what I believe is not necessarily shared by others, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Why is your view right and ours wrong ?

I never claimed it was, hense the reason I said that morality is subjective.

Of course, you could just replace "exploit" with "enslave" or "murder" as a demonstration of how far moral relaitivism will get you.

Do you think that the "Thuggies" considered murder to be immoral? Do you think that the majority of southern Americans in the 1860's considered slavery immoral? A fine example of how Morality in all cases on all issues is subjective, there are always those who hold a different view, always societies which hold a different "Moral code". You can disagree all you want but this is fact, not opinion, morality is entirley subjective, depending on your society, values, etc.

If you want to live in a society then you must accept its moral codes, if you do not then you are likley to find your self in trouble. That is not to say however that there is not another society where the moral code is different and you can do what other cultures would consider "immoral". For example in the Republic of Ireland abortion is illegal, yet if you simply cross the border you can quite legally get an abortion.

So generally I do not attack others for what they consider to be ethical, and I do not. I will argue with them, but I wont try and change their minds. However on certain isues of a more extream nature I do certainly find other peoples behaviour completely wrong.

Oh, and I'm afraid that Haggis is a force unto himself.

Then dont complain when I fight back.

But if you refrain from nasty comments, he might calm down...

Why should I? After all he is the one who started it by calling me a liar, etc. If he stops I may consider stopping, but until then... not a chanse.

Oh... he's not gonna like that.

I really dont give a shit.

It is not at all a "fact" that morality is subjective. Metaphysics tells us that reality is unchanging and that Man has a specific nature. Man must act in a specifc way to live, else he will die.

Ethics is the science of "how should man act?"

If man has a specific nature then he must act in a specific way or else he will die. Thus ethics are NOT subjective.

I dont give a shit about some daft branch of philosphy, reality is far more important, and in this case directly contradicts you.

Man must act in a specifc way to live, else he will die.

And how do you work that out? Different cultures over different perdiods have had very different codes of conduct and principals which they live by, different ethics. They all believed they were right, thus their belief is subjective.

Ethics is the science of "how should man act?"

A weak definition, "Ethics" is the set of principals with which society measures conduct. Societies differ thus ethics differ, thus ethics are subjective.

Unless you suggest that all people have identical views of what is ethical and what is not, then ethics must be subjective.

If man has a specific nature then he must act in a specific way or else he will die.

That suggest that man does have a specific nature and that all people must act uniformly or die. We know that this is not true by looking at history.

Thus ethics are NOT subjective.

Then how do you account for the fact that different cultures have contrasting views on what is ethically correct?


Thus your logic is fundermentaly flawed.

You don't care any more about reality than you do about morality Enigma. Your entire argument rests on saying people disagree therefore there is no truth, it is subjuctive. It also relies on the premise that there are no facts in ethics, that it is ruled by whim. I suspect that this has a deeper root in subjective epistemology and skeptical metaphysics.
Sure people and cultures have had different views on morality? Does right and wrong change each time some people decide something different? People have had different views of the cosmos over the eons too, does it change each time their minds do?

You seem to like to put the word subjective in where the word wrong or mistaken should be. And who is it that lived here? Is it an individual you are talking about or the culture itself? Is it the girl that was sacrificed at harvest time, or the old soothsayer that had his eyes ripped out so he couldn't escape the clan? Are you referring to the slaves who led a retched existence? Are you talking about the the malaria eaten children on the Ganges? Are you talking about entire towns of individuals that were wiped out because of the rage of an all powerful king? What about the jews of Hitler's German? Are you talking about the early death for lack of science? What living are you talking about?

Does man have a specific nature or not? Do the people in those cultures have funamentally differant minds and bodies than any other human beings on the planet?

No, no. Go grab a dictionary. Nowhere in the science of Ethics is the word "society." I gave you THE definition.

They won't die, necessarily, but to the extent that they do not do what human beings must do, they will be HURT. They have to cross a certain threashold to acutally die.

Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps some cultures are simply INCORRECT?

The only way that ethics could be subjective is if DIFFERANT humans required DIFFERANT things to survive. Not like "bill is a big guy so he needs more food," but like "bill lives on sunshine instead of food."

To a limited extent, we all eat, sleep, shit, breed and breath. Beyond that I dont really think so. Some people are pacafist some are not, some are selfless some are not, etc.

Go grab a dictionary.

A set of principles of right conduct.

the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group

I think I was more or less spot on.

Unless you consider that society is not a group of course... :rolleyes:

They won't die, necessarily, but to the extent that they do not do what human beings must do, they will be HURT.

Really? Do you think that Queen "Bloody" Mary was hurt?

Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps some cultures are simply INCORRECT?

Incorrect by your standards, not theirs, as you can see quite Ethics and Morality are subjective.

The only way that ethics could be subjective is if DIFFERANT humans required DIFFERANT things to survive.

And by what possible logical standard do you work that out?



In short it seams your argument is that all other cultures who have different ethical and moral standards are wrong. Have you ever considered that it is you that are wrong? Once you understand that your own ethics are not infalible then you will understand that ethics are completely subjective.

You don't care any more about reality than you do about morality Enigma.

:rolleyes:

Your entire argument rests on saying people disagree therefore there is no truth,

What a truly stupid statement, in order for you to be correct ethics must equate truth, and they most certainly do not. Ethics are not true or false, as they are opinion not fact.

It also relies on the premise that there are no facts in ethics,

Do you know what a fact is? A fact is a statement based reality. Ethics doesn't contain facts, but opinion. "The battle of Waterloo occured in 1815" is a fact, "promiscuity is wrong" is not a fact, but an opinion.

Does right and wrong change each time some people decide something different?

You seam to be unable to get over the fact that there is no such thing as right or wrong ethically, it all depends on the society.

People have had different views of the cosmos over the eons too, does it change each time their minds do?

No because ethics is not factual, astronomy is.

You seem to like to put the word subjective in where the word wrong or mistaken should be.

How can you prove that your opinion, and thats all it is, is correct? What makes your ethical opinon better than anyone elses? How can you prove that you your self are not wrong? Answer is you can't because opinion is not fact.

And who is it that lived here?

Every person and society which has ever existed has had slightly or greatly different ethical views. Who is right, how can they prove they are right, and what makes them right? All questions which are impossible to answer, because ethics are subjective.

opinion

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof


Ethics fall into that catagory.

Enigma, MY ETHICS ARE FOUNDED ON PROOF. THEY ARE NOT OPINION THEY ARE FACT.

Your definition is not complete. Ethics is the science of "what should man do?" You are using the fallacy of begging the question. Ethics are not necessarily subjective. Whether they are or not depends upon one's views of epitemology and metaphysics.

If you believe that existence exists, that consciousness is conscious and that A is A, then Man has SPECIFIC needs to live BEST. Ethics then says that in order to fulfull those needs, man must act in a SPECIFIC way.

So he cannot survive as a plant does by sitting there. He must consume in order to live. In order to consume, he must produce. That is a fact of reality.

In order for ethics to be subjective, he would have to be able to live by some OTHER means than production. But he CAN'T. Man's nature is specific so therefore his ethics must instruct him to act in a specific way.

The extent to which he does not act in that way is the extent to which he does not fulfill the requirements of his existence.

Enigma, MY ETHICS ARE FOUNDED ON PROOF.

What proof, how can you prove that one ethical ideal is better than another? Its impossible, opinions based on the none material cannot be proved, as their is no physical measure to judge accuracy.

Your definition is not complete.

Really? It was a combination of two of the definitions given by the dictionary, it is very complete. Your definition on the other hand is not even in the dictionary.

Whether they are or not depends upon one's views of epitemology and metaphysics.

And a complete lack of understanding of either the nature of ethics or subjectivity.

then Man has SPECIFIC needs to live BEST.

Thats not true, some people do not like to live best, they prefer the quite life etc.

Ethics then says that in order to fulfull those needs, man must act in a SPECIFIC way.

That simply isn't true or all ethics from all societies would be identical, a point I have already made. If there was an actual need to behave in a certain way then all societies would.

He must consume in order to live. In order to consume, he must produce.

And what does that remotley have to do with ethics?

In order for ethics to be subjective, he would have to be able to live by some OTHER means than production.

Thats not true at all, two men from two different societies doing the same job can be bound by two completely different ethical codes and practices. What you are saying has bugger all to do with ethics.

Man's nature is specific so therefore his ethics must instruct him to act in a specific way.

Its true that man has a specific nature, if he is scared he will run, if he is hungry he will eat, etc. Our nature is our instinct, beyond that we have no nature, and what instinctive nature we have can be overridden. Nature does not enter ethics, which is why ethical thought and practice is so diverse. If this were not the case then everyone would NEED to think and feal the same way. They do not, so your argument is false.

What is the "none material?" And yes, there is physical evidence to judge accuracy. I can look at western civilization and then look at jungle tribes and it's pretty obvious that western civ is better than jungle traditionalism.

It's harder to prove personal ethics through comparison of results, since there are a lot of external factors to consider. So let's consider it from a theoretical standpoint.

Suppose that one man's ethics dictated that whenever he encountered a problem, he would bash a rock against his head until he knocked himseld unconscious. Another man's ethics told him to look at the problem logically and try to solve it. Can you honestly say that these two sets of ethics are equal? That one is just as good as the other?

Yours is a definition by inessentials. Ethics is the science that answers the question "what should man do?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

But you concede the point that for specific results, a man must make certain choices. He can't achieve the same results by doing completely opposite things.

That's completely false. Look at what you just said: "if that was true, people would be doing it." So you don't believe in free will? That people can choose to do things that aren't correct?

As I said, ethics is the science of choices. If production is essential to man's life, then it would have to be a central point of ethics. Ethics, after all, is what tells man "you should produce," or "Nah, that production stuff isn't important."

You're confused. I didn't say that men couldn't mistakenly treat ethics AS IF it were subjective. I said that the ones who do are incorrect. So one, or both of those men in your example could be incorrect. The final arbiter to decide this is reality, of course.

You misunderstand. I'm not using "nature" in that way. I'm talking about the things that do not vary from man to man. All men need food to live (measurements may vary). All men need sleep. All men need to consume, so they must produce. All men survive by means of their minds and their judgment. They are sucessfull in surviving to the extent that they are sucessfull in percieving reality and making the correct judgments about how to act. These things are all the same between men.

They would only "need" to think and feel the same way if the results were exactly the same. People have free will. Their nature may all be the same, but that doesn't mean that everyone understands it! People can make mistakes! They can be WRONG.

The differance between societies is not because people are fundamentally differant from each other; it is because they made differant choices. But since man himself is the same, then obviously some societies are making better choices than others.

Fine, it seems we must agree to disagree, this debate is going no where.

Now, whats the verdict, are you going to ban a memeber who obeys the rules or not?

So you're saying that your opinions have no basis in higher philosophy. They're just there with no rational basis? Because you say so?