|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Yes, read Pullman
| Yes, read Pullman [message #300334] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 23:41 |
|
nystulc [at] cs.com <nystulc [at] cs.com> Wrote:
> As you well know, I was talking about SIRIUS, not Snape
I apologies, you're right, you were talking about Sirius not Snape, I
misread. My mistake. Sorry.
> It is impossible to have a discussion with someone
> who insists on butchering and mangling my posts.
> I have already asked you not to do that sort of thing.
For god's sake man, anybody who wants to find your entire post it
will take them about .02 seconds to do so.
> It is likewise impossible to have a discussion of mora
> l issues with someone who is essentially a moral nihilist.
But we seem to be having a discussion nevertheless. What I actually
said was "it makes me unhappy to see other people in pain, and if I
am the cause of that pain then I am even more unhappy", I tend to
think that is a rather healthy philosophy to have, and if that makes me
what you call a "moral nihilist" then so be it.
I made a mistake thinking you were talking about Snape not Sirius, but
you made a much bigger mistake.
> You are ducking the question of whether Asriel's
> act was MORALLY repugnant
I certainly didn't intend to duck that question, so let me now say in
a loud clear voice ASRIEL'S ACT WAS MORALLY REPUGNANT.
> Why then, did you dishonestly pretend you were
> definitely opposed to Asriel's actions on moral grounds?
I wasn't pretending anything, I am not at all certain I oppose
Asriel's actions, I am not at all certain I approve of them either,
and that's what makes things interesting.
> admired" people did indeed engage in morally unjustifiable
> killings (such as the civilian massacres of Hamburg,
> Dresden and Tokyo, to name a few highlights, plus
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Truman).
Where those killings unjustified? I honestly don't know. I mean that,
I really don't know, I wish I did. But I do know one thing, a world
ruled by Hitler wouldn't be much fun.
I also know that if I were a American solder in Europe who had gone
through a unimaginably hideous total hell for 4 years defeating
Germany, and was amazed to discover he had survived this long, and was
awaiting in dread a transfer to the pacific, and then had heard about
the miraculous destruction of a city called Hiroshima by a semi magical
thing called a nuclear bomb, I would treat the news with absolute and
totally unbridled joy. That may or may not have been the most moral
response but I am absolutely certain that is how I would feel. Tell me
honestly, would you have reacted any differently? It's one thing to
make a moral judgment while you're safely in your living room, it's
another when you are in war very near death.
Morality is not easy, if it were we'd have figured it out long ago.
Eggplant
|
|
|
| Re: Yes, read Pullman [message #300367 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 13:23 |
|
eggplant wrote:
> For god's sake man, anybody who wants to find your entire post it
> will take them about .02 seconds to do so.
Okay. Fine. 'Nuff said.
> What I actually
> said was "it makes me unhappy to see other people in pain, and if I
> am the cause of that pain then I am even more unhappy", I tend to
> think that is a rather healthy philosophy to have, [..]
These may well consitute a healthy set of emotional reactions, but that
is all they are: a description of emotional reactions. It is fine, as
far as it goes, but is not nearly enough. You are not describing a
philosophy, much less a moral philosophy. Not only does it have
nothing to do with a moral code, but it does not even have anything to
do with "Moral Utilitarianism".
> [...] and if that makes me
> what you call a "moral nihilist" then so be it.
You said it, not me. If this is really all you have to say for
yourself, you really are a moral nihilist. Hitler could have said the
same.
> I certainly didn't intend to duck that question, so let me now say in
> a loud clear voice ASRIEL'S ACT WAS MORALLY REPUGNANT.
I'm very glad to hear it.
> I wasn't pretending anything, I am not at all certain I oppose
> Asriel's actions, I am not at all certain I approve of them either, [...]
Whoah there! I thought you just said "in a loud clear voice" that
"Asriel's act was morally repugnant." Except that ... uh ... you're
not sure whether you approve of it or not??? I have no idea what the
phrase "morally repugnant" means in your mind, but from where I sit,
you have just contradicted yourself in a big way.
> [...] and that's what makes things interesting.
Yeah. Genghis Khan was an interesting guy.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:28:43 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03253 Sekunden |
