15-06-2005 05:42									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: I wouldn't care if I died. If I was unhappy then I would want to die. Happiness and equality are the end goals. Individual rights are simply intermediate goals that need to be comprimised to meet the end goals.

You are a strange person.

I edited in the last post, the reason we uphold life is because our basic biological desire to continue to survive. There are a ton of people who are unhappy, who are not equal, and who didn't kill themselves. They continued to live. It's something hardwired into us, and we took that to mean its important.

Btw, that's your personal beliefs, I hope you know. My end goal is liberty & personal happiness; equality is simply an intermediate goal that needs to be compromised to meet the end goal. I say personal happiness, but there are things that make me happy that gets people like Christians all pissed off and I could care less about their happiness.

Besides, who decides happiness? Your happiness? My happiness? Majority's happiness? Oppressed happiness?

	15-06-2005 05:50									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui No one said the right to life was absolute. But we do have the freedom to live for the sake of life itself, do we not? Even then we can have the death penalty and all of that stuff. It is just in general, we uphold life. quote: That creates all sorts of philosophical problems. One is that you won't be able to construct a system where you can account for restrictions on speech. True, if you look it absolutely, but I prefer to look at such a statement and say in general, we'd prefer it. The problem, of course, is that in the end, you have to have one principle that beats everything else (who decides what wins in the end). It's why rights are decided by society, but we have our general preferences.

Yes, but preferences are either for intrinsic or instrumental goods. Claiming that free speech is an intrinsic good is a bit like claiming that a mouthful of dirt has intrinsic value – it's hard to see what the value is without bringing in instrumental concerns. That's a good reason to think that someone who assigns intrinsic value to such things is either talking bollocks or really talking about instrumental goods.

Plus, rights based views tend to rely on metaphysical hokum (Kant), God, or hand waving (Locke for both).

There's a simple thought experiment that shows that free speech is not an intrinsic value. Imagine a possible world where it is a matter of necessity that there is nothing worth saying. Does free speech have value in that world? It ought to, if it has intrinsic value. But what's the point if there is nothing worth saying?

	15-06-2005 05:54									#123
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Imagine a possible world where it is a matter of necessity that there is nothing worth saying. Does free speech have value in that world?

Yes. Even if there is nothing worth saying, humans, as autonomous beings (in my view, of course), should have the right to express themselves in any way they wish, even if it is nothing worth saying.

	15-06-2005 05:58									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Imagine a possible world where it is a matter of necessity that there is nothing worth saying.

I guarantee you that wouldn't shut my daughter up. She's a 24-hour monologue machine if there ever was one!

	15-06-2005 05:58									#125
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Imagine a possible world where it is a matter of necessity that there is nothing worth saying. Does free speech have value in that world? Yes. Even if there is nothing worth saying, humans, as autonomous beings (in my view, of course), should have the right to express themselves in any way they wish, even if it is nothing worth saying.

That's not the question. The question is what is the point of such a right? It can, by definition, make absolutely no difference to my life in a world where nothing is worth saying, so the existence of the right seems pointless.... tell me why it matters.

	15-06-2005 06:06									#126
	" Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by JohnT quote: Imagine a possible world where it is a matter of necessity that there is nothing worth saying. I guarantee you that wouldn't shut my daughter up. She's a 24-hour monologue machine if there ever was one!

Like Veruca Salt?

"Daddy! I want an Oompa Loompa!! I want one NOW!"

	15-06-2005 06:07									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Exactly.

	15-06-2005 06:08									#128
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Agathon That's not the question. The question is what is the point of such a right? It can, by definition, make absolutely no difference to my life in a world where nothing is worth saying, so the existence of the right seems pointless.... tell me why it matters.

Did I not say so before? Since we are all autonomous beings, we should have the right to say what we wish. The point is that it is part of our autonomy, our human-ness (IMO, YMMV, of course ).

	15-06-2005 06:11									#129
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Did I not say so before? Since we are all autonomous beings, we should have the right to say what we wish. The point is that it is part of our autonomy, our human-ness.

That's a description, not part of an axiology. I want to know why it is valuable. In the boring world it seems to have no value at all. I am no better of with or without it.

	15-06-2005 06:14									#130
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I wouldn't care if I died. If I was unhappy then I would want to die. Happiness and equality are the end goals. Individual rights are simply intermediate goals that need to be comprimised to meet the end goals. You are a strange person. I edited in the last post, the reason we uphold life is because our basic biological desire to continue to survive. There are a ton of people who are unhappy, who are not equal, and who didn't kill themselves. They continued to live. It's something hardwired into us, and we took that to mean its important.

With some people that's true. With other people it's not, so the absolute right to life can't be an end goal in the absolute sense.

quote: Btw, that's your personal beliefs, I hope you know. My end goal is liberty & personal happiness; equality is simply an intermediate goal that needs to be compromised to meet the end goal. I say personal happiness, but there are things that make me happy that gets people like Christians all pissed off and I could care less about their happiness.

That's why it's so difficult to talk to you. I don't care about your personal happiness anymore than I care about anyone elses.

quote: Besides, who decides happiness? Your happiness? My happiness? Majority's happiness? Oppressed happiness?

People who acknowledge that other people's happiness is just as important as their own are capable of coming to a reasonable conclusion about what makes people happy.

	15-06-2005 06:15									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Did I not say so before? Since we are all autonomous beings, we should have the right to say what we wish. The point is that it is part of our autonomy, our human-ness. That's a description, not part of an axiology. I want to know why it is valuable. In the boring world it seems to have no value at all. I am no better of with or without it.

I have no clue what you are asking. It has value because it is part of your autonomy. You are better off with it because even if you don't have anything to say, the government is not limiting you in that, but you, yourself are.

I mean, what more are you getting at? I think that's pretty damned valuable in itself. Just because you don't see the value doesn't mean that it doesn't have any.

Furthermore... we don't live in the 'boring world'. We live in the real world.

	15-06-2005 06:21									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: With some people that's true. With other people it's not, so the absolute right to life can't be an end goal in the absolute sense.

There is no absolute end goal, there are only personal end goals or societal end goals. It depends on the circumstances.

quote: I don't care about your personal happiness anymore than I care about anyone elses.

But you care about your own personal happiness (whatever that may include) more than you care about mine. If you say you don't you are a liar.

quote: People who acknowledge that other people's happiness is just as important as their own are capable of coming to a reasonable conclusion about what makes people happy.

And what if they come up with vastly different conclusions? A Christian who thinks other people's happiness is just as important as her own concludes that porn should be banned because without the exploitation of pornography the workers in the porn world will be happier and the people who watch it will be in healthier relationships.

Will you accept that? Like I said, who decides.

	15-06-2005 06:31									#133
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: With some people that's true. With other people it's not, so the absolute right to life can't be an end goal in the absolute sense. There is no absolute end goal, there are only personal end goals or societal end goals. It depends on the circumstances.

Your missing the point. There is no value in the absolute right to life if not everyone wants to live under every circumstance. The only value in the right to life is that it makes people happy.

quote: quote: I don't care about your personal happiness anymore than I care about anyone elses. But you care about your own personal happiness (whatever that may include) more than you care about mine. If you say you don't you are a liar.

When I consider policy I consider your happiness just as important as everyone elses, because I'm a rational person.

quote: quote: People who acknowledge that other people's happiness is just as important as their own are capable of coming to a reasonable conclusion about what makes people happy. And what if they come up with vastly different conclusions? A Christian who thinks other people's happiness is just as important as her own concludes that porn should be banned because without the exploitation of pornography the workers in the porn world will be happier and the people who watch it will be in healthier relationships. Will you accept that? Like I said, who decides.

Christians don't believe in reason, only their religion. The people have to be reasonable.

	15-06-2005 06:40									#134
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Your missing the point. There is no value in the absolute right to life if not everyone wants to live under every circumstance. The only value in the right to life is that it makes people happy.

Well it's a good thing that I didn't state it was an ABSOLUTE right to life, now isn't it? I don't believe in absolute rights. There is no such thing as a right without a limit. However, it is asserted that there is a right to life. What this means is there is a general right to life. That life will trump most of the time. It's in a prime position where the exception is taking away life.

As for it makes people happy, the ONLY way to be happy is if you are alive. So, if anything, they'd merge. And there are plenty of time where people decide to pass on happiness for someone else's benefit. So happiness isn't an absolute end either.

quote: When I consider policy I consider your happiness just as important as everyone elses, because I'm a rational person.

Rationality doesn't mean you have to consider my happiness. It just means you have a reasoned argument from whatever start and end you choose (which are never rational, btw... the start and end chosen are just as based on 'faith' as any religion).

And that's the question.. is it better for a vast majority to be happy as they can be (and a very small minority to not be happy) or for everyone to be just barely happy?

quote: Christians don't believe in reason, only their religion. The people have to be reasonable.

Thomas Aquinas would disagree.

And I find plenty of Christians to be fairly reasonable. They can go from their start to end points with reasoned debate.


And where would the fact that I don't consider you reasonable at all fit in?

	15-06-2005 07:08									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Your missing the point. There is no value in the absolute right to life if not everyone wants to live under every circumstance. The only value in the right to life is that it makes people happy. Well it's a good thing that I didn't state it was an ABSOLUTE right to life, now isn't it? I don't believe in absolute rights. There is no such thing as a right without a limit. However, it is asserted that there is a right to life. What this means is there is a general right to life. That life will trump most of the time. It's in a prime position where the exception is taking away life.

That's funny, because it seemed that you were arguing for an absolute right to freedom of speech. Why should speech be free that doesn't increase the overall happiness or equality of society.

quote: As for it makes people happy, the ONLY way to be happy is if you are alive. So, if anything, they'd merge. And there are plenty of time where people decide to pass on happiness for someone else's benefit. So happiness isn't an absolute end either.

This doesn't make enough sense to comment on.

quote: quote: When I consider policy I consider your happiness just as important as everyone elses, because I'm a rational person. Rationality doesn't mean you have to consider my happiness.

Rational is considering everything. Considering your own happiness more important than anyone elses is simple bias. There is no rational argument for it.

quote: It just means you have a reasoned argument from whatever start and end you choose (which are never rational, btw... the start and end chosen are just as based on 'faith' as any religion).

No. It's making unbiased assumptions.

quote: And that's the question.. is it better for a vast majority to be happy as they can be (and a very small minority to not be happy) or for everyone to be just barely happy?

That's why I believe in equality also.

quote: quote: Christians don't believe in reason, only their religion. The people have to be reasonable. Thomas Aquinas would disagree.

Really? Did he ever entertain the prospect that the Bible wasn't absolute truth?

quote: And I find plenty of Christians to be fairly reasonable. They can go from their start to end points with reasoned debate.

They can not go outside of their own bias. To do so would be a sin. They are instructed to rely on their own faith, and not their understanding.

quote: And where would the fact that I don't consider you reasonable at all fit in?

Seeing that you are biased towards yourself, and that all of your arguments reflect that fact, that means nothing.

	15-06-2005 07:17									#136
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I have no clue what you are asking. It has value because it is part of your autonomy. You are better off with it because even if you don't have anything to say, the government is not limiting you in that, but you, yourself are.

But if there's nothing worth saying, then by definition I'm no worse off even if the government prevents me saying anything. What you are saying contains a formal contradiction.

quote: I mean, what more are you getting at? I think that's pretty damned valuable in itself. Just because you don't see the value doesn't mean that it doesn't have any.

What's valuable about it independently of what you can do with it? Your previous example was self contradictory, so you'll have to indulge me.

	15-06-2005 07:20									#137
	Tired of ads?

quote: Why should speech be free that doesn't increase the overall happiness or equality of society.

It increases liberty of society, which is as important or more so than yours.

quote: Rational is considering everything.

No, it isn't. Rational is the ability to reason, ie, make logical/analytic arguments. You don't have to consider everything to make a logical argument, just relevent things.

Considering everything is more a product of liberalism, not rationalism.

quote: No. It's making unbiased assumptions.

Everyone has bias. You may think you are making an unbiased assumption, but you really are not. It is a product of your inherant biases (of which you have many).

quote: Really? Did he ever entertain the prospect that the Bible wasn't absolute truth?

I don't think so, but he made rational arguments for Christian beliefs. That is rationality, NOT 'consider everything'.

quote: They can not go outside of their own bias. To do so would be a sin.

It seems you believe in a similar idea. If you were to go out of your bias, I'd die of shock.

quote: Seeing that you are biased towards yourself

As are you, more than anyone else on this site, frankly. You have been more than willing to twist any subject to suit your bias.

	15-06-2005 07:24									#138
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: But if there's nothing worth saying, then by definition I'm no worse off even if the government prevents me saying anything. What you are saying contains a formal contradiction.

But you have the option of saying something. If you aren't going to say something, someone else may something that may benefit you. Besides if you have nothing worth saying ever, then you are not human, IMO.

Your abstraction has no relation to reality, so I don't see the point of your abstraction (kind of the same thing with Rawls' work, if the abstraction is absurd, the whole example comes down like a house of cards).

	15-06-2005 07:31									#139
	Support Apolyton

quote: Hey, at least "boobies" isn't blocked

They don't call the m"boobies" in china. They are called Chi Chis

	15-06-2005 07:41									#140
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: But if there's nothing worth saying, then by definition I'm no worse off even if the government prevents me saying anything. What you are saying contains a formal contradiction. But you have the option of saying something.

But the value of our options doesn't lie in the option itself, but in the range of outcomes. That is why we choose one over the other. You need to show me how autonomy is the source of value. After all, I don't even know for certain if I am autonomous anyway, so that makes the claim even more bizarre.

quote: Your abstraction has no relation to reality, so I don't see the point of your abstraction (kind of the same thing with Rawls' work, if the abstraction is absurd, the whole example comes down like a house of cards).

Of course it doesn't – that's the point. It is a thought experiment designed to isolate the source of value from contingent factors and display it's essence (the meaning of the term, to be a bit more modern). I thought you would have been familiar enough with philosophy to have used the logically possible worlds device for analysis.

And the abstraction doesn't come down like a house of cards. In fact it enables us to dispense with the irrelevant and accidental features of a situation and get to the heart of the matter. It's a picturesque way of engaging in conceptual analysis.

	15-06-2005 07:45									#141
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Why should speech be free that doesn't increase the overall happiness or equality of society. It increases liberty of society, which is as important or more so than yours.

Liberty independent of happiness has no value. For example the freedom to own property only has as much value as the property that you actually own, and the happiness that it brings you.

quote: quote: Rational is considering everything. No, it isn't. Rational is the ability to reason, ie, make logical/analytic arguments. You don't have to consider everything to make a logical argument, just relevent things.

Relevent to happiness? Who's happiness? Just your own?

quote: Considering everything is more a product of liberalism, not rationalism.

You can't possibly justify anything without considering everything. That's what reason is all about, justifying things.

quote: quote: No. It's making unbiased assumptions. Everyone has bias. You may think you are making an unbiased assumption, but you really are not. It is a product of your inherant biases (of which you have many).

True everyone is biased, but reasonable people are able to see their own bias and make unbiased arguments.

quote: quote: Really? Did he ever entertain the prospect that the Bible wasn't absolute truth? I don't think so, but he made rational arguments for Christian beliefs. That is rationality, NOT 'consider everything'.

Logical is not the same as rational. You can make a logical, but biased argument, that is not rational.

quote: quote: They can not go outside of their own bias. To do so would be a sin. It seems you believe in a similar idea. If you were to go out of your bias, I'd die of shock.

On what basis do you make this judgement?

	15-06-2005 07:55									#142
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: But the value of our options doesn't lie in the option itself, but in the range of outcomes. That is why we choose one over the other. You need to show me how autonomy is the source of value. After all, I don't even know for certain if I am autonomous anyway, so that makes the claim even more bizarre.

Autonomy is another way of saying liberty (more or less). People like choosing the outcome that gives them more liberty to do what they want (as a general principle, not all the time).

As for the you don't know if you are autonomous, you can claim that for anything. Ie, you can say that you aren't certain if you are equal anyway, depending on how equality is measured.

quote: I thought you would have been familiar enough with philosophy to have used the logically possible worlds device for analysis. And the abstraction doesn't come down like a house of cards. In fact it enables us to dispense with the irrelevant and accidental features of a situation and get to the heart of the matter. It's a picturesque way of engaging in conceptual analysis.

That's the problem. I don't think those abstractions are logically possible. I think that is one of the major failings of philosophy, these unrealistic worlds to explain concepts. What some philosophers consider 'irrelevent' and 'accidental' others may consider essential as a base part of human life. Such as the 'boring world'. It is a base part of humanity to have opinions how they should be able to live. You can't seperate that out and have anything that applies to reality.

	15-06-2005 08:06									#143
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Liberty independent of happiness has no value.

And equality independant of happiness has value? And whose happiness? A majority of society? A vast majority of society? Every single, solitary person?

quote: You can't possibly justify anything without considering everything. That's what reason is all about, justifying things.

When someone asks you how do you justify equality, do you consider Fascist political theory? Roman society? It'd take you 50 years to come up with a precursory answer.

All you have to consider is the view(s) you are being immediately contested with.

quote: True everyone is biased, but reasonable people are able to see their own bias and make unbiased arguments.

No, they THINK they can make unbiased arguments even though they can see where they are biased. It doesn't work.

quote: Logical is not the same as rational. You can make a logical, but biased argument, that is not rational.

Of course it is. Logical thought is part of the definition of reason, which is part of the definition of rational.

No one can make an unbiased argument, so what you are saying is that no one is rational.

quote: On what basis do you make this judgement?

All I have to do is to point to a number of your political posts. Though your rants against rent take the cake!

You are a socialist, so heaven forbid if a right winger makes a moral judgment... to you it MUST be wrong! It's inherant in your biased outlook on life.

Don't feel bad though, we all do it. Though some of us, once in a while, can recognize that the other side may be correct.

	15-06-2005 08:06									#144
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: But the value of our options doesn't lie in the option itself, but in the range of outcomes. That is why we choose one over the other. You need to show me how autonomy is the source of value. After all, I don't even know for certain if I am autonomous anyway, so that makes the claim even more bizarre. Autonomy is another way of saying liberty (more or less). People like choosing the outcome that gives them more liberty to do what they want (as a general principle, not all the time).

People like it. Is that where the value inheres? It certainly apppears that it can't be universally liked, so it's not going to help as a bearer of intrinsic value unless you become a relativist, in which case there was no point looking for the answer in the first place.

quote: As for the you don't know if you are autonomous, you can claim that for anything. Ie, you can say that you aren't certain if you are equal anyway, depending on how equality is measured.

You can point to objectively verifiable facts in most cases of equality, but not in the case of autonomy. In fact liberty seems to be at odds with the scientific view of the human person.

quote: quote: I thought you would have been familiar enough with philosophy to have used the logically possible worlds device for analysis. And the abstraction doesn't come down like a house of cards. In fact it enables us to dispense with the irrelevant and accidental features of a situation and get to the heart of the matter. It's a picturesque way of engaging in conceptual analysis. That's the problem. I don't think those abstractions are logically possible. I think that is one of the major failings of philosophy, these unrealistic worlds to explain concepts. What some philosophers consider 'irrelevent' and 'accidental' others may consider essential as a base part of human life. Such as the 'boring world'. It is a base part of humanity to have opinions how they should be able to live. You can't seperate that out and have anything that applies to reality.

They are logically possible, given what "logically possible" means. It is logically impossible to have a married bachelor or a round square. A logically possible world is simply one that recognizes those restrictions but no others. It so happens that synonymies are preserved in every logically possible world, which is what makes it a useful device for conceptual analysis.

I'm not speaking of "irrelevant" and "accidental" in the way you are using them. I am using them in a specific sense that is contrasted with "essential". What people "consider" is of no importance. Being six foot tall is an accidental feature of a bachelor – being a man is an essential feature. Being six feet tall is irrevelant to "bachelorness" – being a man is not. Someone who disagrees is either wrong, or is misusing the English word.

You say that it is essential to a human being to be able to have opinions about how to live? What about people who are in non-autonomous states? Are they no longer persons.

(and the test for whether this is an essential feature of humanity is of course the logically possible worlds test, in that humans should have this across all logically possible worlds in which they exist if your claim is true).

	15-06-2005 08:17									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: unless you become a relativist

You don't read my posts do you?

quote: You can point to objectively verifiable facts in most cases of equality

Maybe that we look similar... but even biologically, some of us are faster, some of us are smarter. Maybe we have an equal potential, but that isn't very verifiable.

quote: What about people who are in non-autonomous states? Are they no longer persons.

Like Terry Schiavo? Yeah, I'd consider them in a lesser state of humanity.

quote: and the test for whether this is an essential feature of humanity is of course the logically possible worlds test, in that humans should have this across all logically possible worlds in which they exist if your claim is true

Bull, because the 'logically possible worlds' is lets just make up what I think and say it is a "logical world" and then I can justify anything I want to. Hey look, in this world, humans don't have seratonin receptors, so happiness is worthless, etc.

	15-06-2005 08:27									#146
	Increase the size of your Attachments

This thread is a bunch of philosophical bullshit.

I'll simplify it for you and put the stupid ethicists out of their useless jobs:

1. China will censor if Microsoft abides by their laws
2. China will censor if Microsoft does not abide by their laws

3. Microsoft will provide its products to a market and allow them to buy it
4. Microsoft will not provide products, removing competition

From 1 and 2, you see that no matter what Microsoft does, China will not alter its censorship policy.

From 3 and 4, you can see the 4th option is good for no one, and the 3rd option is good to Microsoft and its shareholders, and to the consumers in the market.

You're making a case that would remove a major competitor from the Chinese marketplace without any impact to their human rights issues, all because you're on a moral highhorse without an ounce of practicality in you.

-->>> This thread is why we don't need Ethics Philosophers and their committees to tell us what is moral and what isn't.

	15-06-2005 09:09									#147
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Liberty independent of happiness has no value. And equality independant of happiness has value? And whose happiness? A majority of society? A vast majority of society? Every single, solitary person?

People desire equality to make sure that they get happiness. So in that sense they are dependent upon each other. Equal rights, however, does not insure happiness for everyone. It can be important, however, to the extent that it makes people happy.

quote: quote: You can't possibly justify anything without considering everything. That's what reason is all about, justifying things. When someone asks you how do you justify equality, do you consider Fascist political theory? Roman society? It'd take you 50 years to come up with a precursory answer. All you have to consider is the view(s) you are being immediately contested with.

Which is why Christians are not rational, because they only consider views that are consistant with the Bible.

quote: quote: True everyone is biased, but reasonable people are able to see their own bias and make unbiased arguments. No, they THINK they can make unbiased arguments even though they can see where they are biased. It doesn't work.

Why do you think that people are incapable of making unbiased judgements?

quote: quote: Logical is not the same as rational. You can make a logical, but biased argument, that is not rational. Of course it is. Logical thought is part of the definition of reason, which is part of the definition of rational.

Well you can avoid breaking the rules of logic and still not be reasonable, because you are free to make any biased premise, no matter how unreasonable.

quote: No one can make an unbiased argument, so what you are saying is that no one is rational.

This claim seems quite absurd. Try and prove it.

quote: quote: On what basis do you make this judgement? All I have to do is to point to a number of your political posts. Though your rants against rent take the cake! You are a socialist, so heaven forbid if a right winger makes a moral judgment... to you it MUST be wrong! It's inherant in your biased outlook on life. Don't feel bad though, we all do it. Though some of us, once in a while, can recognize that the other side may be correct.

I'm not biased simply because you disagree with me. Is that the best argument you can come up with?

	15-06-2005 09:16									#148
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Asher From 1 and 2, you see that no matter what Microsoft does, China will not alter its censorship policy.

Isn't it obvious that China's ability to oppress it's people is increased because Microsoft agrees to sell the new software?

	15-06-2005 09:23									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: People desire equality to make sure that they get happiness. So in that sense they are dependent upon each other.

People desire liberty to make sure that they get happiness. So in that sense they are dependent upon each other.

quote: Which is why Christians are not rational, because they only consider views that are consistant with the Bible.

Nice generalization! Do you think every Christian is a fundamentalist? What about those who have liberal interpretations of the Bible?

quote: Why do you think that people are incapable of making unbiased judgements?

How can someone seperate out all their experiences when making a judgement? It is because of those experiences that they believe in what they believe and that informs the starting premises and conclusions. You claim a 'biased' premise later on. Every premise is based on bias. It is based on your experiences and teachings. There is a reason why political parties find strength in certain areas. Shared experiences tend to result in shared biases, which result in shared biased premises.

They can say they want to make 'unbiased' judgements, but it all comes back to the experiences they've had since they were a kid, which shaped their beliefs and how they look at the world.

It's a nice saying, put yourself in someone else's shoes, but you don't have the experiences necessary to actually do it. You can try to imagine, but your biases will color the attempt.

quote: I'm not biased simply because you disagree with me.

It isn't disagreement, because I think people like DinoDoc, Kuciwalker, and myself are biased as well, in our own ways.

When I look at your biased work, I come to that discussion where we were discussing why Toyota raised their prices. You immediately jumped on the 'they are doing this because they are going to make more profit' reason as a result of your anti-corporation bias. You backed away very quickly when it was pointed out how silly that was. Kuci detailed your pwnage very nicely, and how in the end, you shifted positions to agree that the actual reason Toyota did it was so they could avoid tariffs placed by the US government, but then acted like that was what you were saying all along.

It was amusing, but your biased showed with your anti-corporation rant before you even seemed to think the entire issue through.

	15-06-2005 09:26									#150
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Isn't it obvious that China's ability to oppress it's people is increased because Microsoft agrees to sell the new software?

Wha? So if Microsoft decided not to sell the new software, China's people are less oppressed?

So if no one from the West sold to China, the people would be much less oppressed than they are now?

Frankly, I think that Western values and culture which comes in from trade results in a more positive change than shutting trade out. In fact, I think that was the smarter thing to do with Cuba.