Sure, but your moral theory could simply prioritize one over the other. Something like “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” So that way maintaining social stability necessarily trumps individual needs/concerns. — Pinprick

Well…ok, but that doesnt do anything to address that the two are in conflict. All you're doing there is picking one over the other.
In this context it is the moral needs of the many outweighing the moral needs of the few. In other words the moral needs of society (what is good for society) outweigh the moral needs of an individual. (What is good for a person). The two will at times conflict, such as in the case of rule of law vs some morally justified vigilante justice.
Even if you have a personal ethic that puts society ahead of the the individual you will still get the conflict. You’ve just shifted where that conflict takes place from a dichotomy between societies good and the individuals good to a dichotomy between two tenets of a personal moral theory, the dichotomy is exactly the same in both cases. The conflict is still there, the choice between societies good or an individuals good must still be made.

Well neither is ideal I suppose but in my defence I did tag a disclaimer of sorts in the end. :wink:

I dont know what you mean by that.

If you are talking about the motivations of conspiracy theory folk for believing what they believe I think its a few different things. Its about having special knowledge, being part of a special group of “insiders” who are special as opposed to numbed out masses fooled by the “elite”. Then there is the delivery…many of these conspiracies have a staggering amount of content, argument and “science” out there for people to research. These two things make for a very seductive influence for people who don’t have a lot going on in their lives.
I don’t want to paint with a broad brush but when it comes to Qanon levels, I think the above is a large factor.

And here is misunderstanding regarding such conspiracies.

lizard people, those proclaimed by David Icke, this isn't really a conspiracy in full meaning, obviously there is no such thing as "lizard people" literary, instead he is figuratively referring to tiny portion of wealthy individuals that have control over wide aspect of economy world wide such as banksters and similar master minds who push new world order agenda, which is a fact that is observable.

A better question is, why does he speak of them as "lizards" rather than referring to them directly? — SpaceDweller

I believe the misunderstanding is yours sir.
Look a little deeper into it. He actually believes its lizard people, aliens. Nothing figurative about it. They secretly control the world and hide various truths and kill people who oppose them and all manner of blatant conspiracies. When you go deep, all the different conspiracy theories start to intertwine once you get to the Qanon people.
The “illuminati” theory your talking about is conspiracy light these days, unfortunately.

And "flat earth" isn't conspiracy either except it's labeled as such, obviously it's clear the earth is not flat plate, but in old times no one was aware that the earth is round and that it's not the center of universe, not even the church.
If the church leaders knew that fact (or didn't believed) then surely wouldn't call N. Copernicus heretic.
Even ancients believed the Earth is the center around which stars are circling.

But that's not unknown, including the answer to, why was flat earth labeled as "conspiracy" (much later) even though it has nothing to do with conspiracy as theory or intentional plotting? — SpaceDweller

Again, you simply cannot be familiar with modern flat earth theories and think it isnt a conspiracy. If you look deeper you will find that they think the earth is flat and there is a global conspiracy of all mainstream science and modern governments to hide that truth from the populace. The moon landing was fake as well as any photos or video of the earth being a globe. Airlines are all in on it, falsifying records of flights and suppressing or removing eye witnesses to the flat earth, the ice wall that surrounds it and the airline routes that would “prove” flat earth. They even have their own “scientific” data and experiments (awful, laughable, non-scientific experiments) that “prove” mainstream science and NASA lie and suppress the truth about flat earth.


The fact that flat earth used to be widely believed is irrelevant. It wasnt a conspiracy theory back then but rather erroneous science. Today, it fits every metric of a conspiracy theory.

You are conflating scientific error and ignorant belief with conspiracy theory. They are not the same thing, even if there is some overlap with terms and references. You conflate modern conspiracy theory with erroneous scientific theory. (And if you want to talk about the churches suppression of a spherical earth theory you still arent talking about a conspiracy theory…there was nothing secretive about it.)
When we refer to flat earth conspiracy we are making a specific reference to people who believe that the earth is flat and that their is a secret global effort to deceive everyone about it and specifically NOT about humanities ignorant past errors. (Though of course modern conspiracy theorists would say the ignorant humans of the past had it right).

That sounds more like error than conspiracy. There are conventions and orthodoxies in all human institutions, including scientific academia. Calling it conspiracy is an unnecessary dilution of the term.

I chose those three to specifically deny that counter argument. They were not legal. They involved lying to the public and to other branches of government to which the perpetrators were supposed to be accountable. In each case, efforts were made to hide these activities from again, other parts of the government to which they were accountable.
Thats enough to call it a conspiracy, and doing otherwise seems like bending a ways over to avoid using the term “conspiracy”. Understandable given the associating theories I offered above, but for myself I will not concede language for the sake of optics.
Also, there are confessions by perpetrators of these sorts of conspiracies detailing how the phrase “conspiracy theory” was purposefully tainted and smeared so its use would have exactly the effect of easy dismissal. Its a language game, and there are detailed expositions about these sorts of tactics.

In what way?

Gulf of Tonkin, Project MK Ultra, Tuskegee Syphillis study…its actually not that hard to find them if you actually look.
Those three in particular involve government cover up and/or secrecy. All are a matter of public record now.

The fact you can reference crazy ones like flat earth or lizard people which are clearly untrue doesn't mean they all aren’t true. We have a word for that kind of logic.
The question of conspiracy theories isnt about the conclusions, its about how they got there. Like all inquiry we should follow evidence and rationality.

Couldn’t, or shouldn’t, things like “social stability” just be incorporated into a person’s ethical theory? I feel like any form of consequentialism would necessarily have to consider things like social stability and the impact whatever moral choice has on it. — Pinprick

Well there will be times when social stability and morality/ethics come into conflict. This isnt mutually exclusive to the point you're making. So the moral consideration of the consequences to society of an act should be included whenever they can be, I would agree with that. When the two are in conflict, they are competing priorities and one must choose.

You put ethical higher meaning than practical, while this sounds ethical and in most of the cases valid, there are cases where an issue isn't only a matter of ethical or not. — SpaceDweller

No, I didnt mean to imply ethical above practical. Indeed, my view is that ethics are merely one of many priorities people have. When these priorities are in conflict, sometimes morality ethics lose out. Thats the main problem I have with many systems of ethics, they assume morality as the highest priority when its much more common for ethics to be 3-4th on the list of priorities for people. For example, many people put family before ethics or sadly most people put money above ethics and compromising ethics for money is so common they scarcely recognize their behaviour as unethical. (Some clever folks even call it “business ethics” to create the illusion that they still operate ethically.)

If you're a judge that is supposed to be just then in such extreme situations it's not only about you and defendant, you also need to care of yourself because there may be millions if not billions of those seeking justice :wink:
If that's sounds unethical to you then don't judge. — SpaceDweller

I think we agree. I would describe that as putting a higher degree of priority on social stability than ethics. This is what judges and lawyers are doing all the time, and why people often refer to lawyers as scum….they arent acting ethically first. They are acting in the interests of a system first, and MAYBE putting ethics second but more likely not at all because they do not recognize a distinction between what they do and ethics, therefore they dont consider ethics because they think they have already.

Not really, consider a person who attempts to pollute a water so that whole society would face serious issues for survival, and this attempt becomes publicly known. (but not committed)

Would you punish such a person in private (punishment) or in public (deterrent)?
What's the purpose of private torture if there is a whole host of potential people who might think doing such evil is actually a good idea? — SpaceDweller

Sorry I wasnt clear. I was stating your stance not offering my own when I said “as punishment, ethical, as deterrent unethical.”. What I meant was I myself do not see a difference between the ethical standing of either is f those. The argument you proceed to make is a practical one, not an ethical one. I concede your point that its more practical, useful to torture publicly rather privately to deter a crime like that but what is the difference in the rightness or wrongness of the tortures themselves in each case?
Or are ethics about whats practical in your view?

Primary purpose of punishment in public is deterrence not punishment, for reasons in example above.

Put it another way, we face COVID pandemic, now somehow a person is found guilty who is responsible for this, such that it was his will to infect the whole world.
Would your just punishment be death penalty, torture in public or torture in private? — SpaceDweller

Ok, gotchya. Thanks for clarifying.

Well if you havent read his interactions with others I can assure you it is a complete waste of time engaging with Bart. Dont take my word for it, review his chats with anyone, you will see how its just going in circles, much like Barts “logic”.

Hey mods, at what point does Barts posting become low quality? I submit he hasn’t engaged or been engaged with a single quality discussion. At best they start with sime merit and quickly degenerate into something indistinguishable from trolling.
How about the boot already?

Definitely yes, torture for the sole purpose of punishment is not only unethical but also uncivilized. — SpaceDweller

As punishment, unethical. As a deterrent, ethical.
They seem to have the same ethical standing to me, how have you made this distinction?

Torture in public, primary goal is to discourage committed crime or evil, punishment comes as "collateral" and is secondary. — SpaceDweller

I can tell youve given this some thought and for that reason I suspect you see that explanation as expansive but Im not sure what you mean. First part is clear but the second part I need expanded. Punishment is collateral and “secondary”…collateral of what, and secondary to what?

Ok I see. I just can’t agree with torture being so broadly applied. The threat of gruesome death as torture? We have to have a higher bar than that.

Im still unclear. By that definition of torture, spanking a child is torture…is that the kind of thing you wish to include?
What kind of inflicted pain is humane? (Since you restrict torture to “inhumane” pain?

No, that's mostly just 'mercans. The civilised world did away with that shit years ago. — Banno

Did they? Where in the “civilized world” did they do away with torture as described in the OP? Even in the US the things you quoted aren’t everywhere, only in parts.

You gotta stop feeding the Bart, it only encourages him. Don’t be his chump.

Interesting, do you think torture as punishment would be unethical, but the other two reasons for torture ethical?
Can you expand on torture as a public deterrent?

I don’t think torture is unethical as it gets, and certainly not because it violates sanctity of life. I do not believe life is sacred, although maybe we have different ideas of what that means.
Also, you are using “torture” far too broadly in my view. You seem to think suffering = torture? Would that be accurate? You even list capital punishment as “torture”. In what way?

Lol, well Ill give you credit for trying but no Tim Wood I don’t do much tar baby grabbing myself. My comments purpose was to try and get you to stop feeding the troll, not an invitation for discussion. If I somehow, in some incomprehensible way, haven’t been clear: I do not believe there is any benefit in engaging with you, only cost. I think you are a dishonest arguer, and a fool.

But like…just stop fucking talking to that guy already. Its painful.

Thrice the fool Bartricks is, once because you are indeed a great fool, twice the fool for engaging with Bartricks and thrice the fool for doing so repeatedly. Godsakes man, you have already done this dance and drawn the same conclusion!
Have you thought about what this implies about you? Hint: it has something to do with the love of ones own voice…

Amen :up:

I go back and forth on it. Its clear that there are significant portions of people who make people like Trump dangerous by listening and accepting what he is saying but its also clear to me that its extremely dangerous to make rules (twitter bans etc) that restrict people in that way because then that tool is there for anyone to pick up and use. I can’t think of too many institutions I trust with that tool.
Who is more dangerous, a guy like Trump or the people who voted for him? Is it better to restrict Trump (easier, for sure) or to educate people?
Also, I was under the impression mores soon he was banned while president?

Sure, but specifically to your comment about depriving Trump voters a voice I wondered whether you thought Trump should be deprived of his voice? Or were you doing a sarcastic impression of a Trump voter? (It can be hard to tell via text)

I love that people like Tim, who is living through a political moment in which an entire population of people voted for Trump because they felt their voice was not being heard, thinks the solution is to deprive people of voices even more.

One can only conclude that Tim is a Trump supporter. — StreetlightX

Im curious, do you think Trump should have been banned on twitter like he was?

For what reason can it not be said how much the pain hurts, as a matter of fact? — darthbarracuda

Because it is subjective, there is no fact of the matter that applies to everyone.

The pain example makes the exact same mistake. That is not a like example. A like example would be asking about how much pain. Whether she is in pain is a fact, how much the pain hurts is subjective.
Your last paragraph was just repeating the same mistake so clearly I have failed to make my point.
It looks like you moved on in your next post so Ill leave it at that.

Yes. Just as Stacey must believe that Paul is her boyfriend in order for Paul to be her boyfriend, Stacey must believe that she has a good life in order for her to have a good life. That is my claim. — darthbarracuda

Ok, so my point was that those two examples are not analogous. The first references facts, part of which is what “boyfriend” means by definition. The second references opinion, not facts. The two examples are not like and therefore acceptance of the first does not entail acceptance of the second.

Lets make sure Im not confused about what youre saying first.
For ease of reference, P1 = “recognition of a good life is necessary for a good life”

First you used

"Stacey has a boyfriend named Paul."

With an accompanying explanation. You then used

"Stacey has a good life." — darthbarracuda

With accompanying explanation. I read the intention of the two examples as an attempt to establish that if you accept the logic of the first then you have to accept the logic of the second since the two examples are the same in regard to P1. In other words, you wanted to show that your two examples are analogous in order to establish P1.

Is that correct?

Well I asked for your case for recognition of life being good required for a good life and you responded with your Stacey scenarios which I pointed out doesnt really support that recognition of life being good being required for a good life.
Now you are saying that you weren’t trying to make that case but rather a point about subjective/objective components.

So assuming there was a miscommunication I want to ask again, whats your case fir recognition of a good life required for a good life?

"Stacey has a boyfriend named Paul." — darthbarracuda

"Stacey has a good life." — darthbarracuda

These two statements are not analogous. The first is a statement about objective facts, the second you intended to to be statement about Staceys belief about her life which is subjective.
In order for your two statements to be analogous the “happy life” of the second statement would have to be referencing objective components/qualifiers of a happy life. As soon as you do that it completely undermines your point because then Staceys subjective opinion about her lifes happiness isnt determinate of Staceys happy life.
If thats your case for a good life requiring recognition of it being a good life I think it falls short sir.

“Life IS pain your highness, and anyone who tells you different is selling something”

Selling something like Elfism for example. :wink:

Okay, so you disagree with the initial premise. I never argued for it, that's fair. I did not include the possibility that utterances about life might be expressive rather than descriptive. If having a good life is not dependent on believing that one has a good life, then my argument fails, no question about it. But that's obvious. It is odd that it took you this long to make that point. — darthbarracuda

So do you have a good argument as to this expressive/descriptive distinction? It seems fairly obvious that a good life doesnt entail recognition of it, especially when one accepts life can be objectively bad or good.
Whats your case for a good life requiring belief that that life is good?

:lol:
:lol:

….

:lol:

Hysterical :rofl:

Like perfectly hysterical, from your delivery to my out loud laughter.

Look out everyone we’re all going to jail :rofl:
What are you? 10? 12?

:rofl:

Its strange for you to drop an OP and then act like a smug prick to everyone who responds. Get humble, your OP is not the rock solid argument you seem to think it is. At best your logic requires explaining, its not that clear to the reader where the strength of your argument lies.

42?

Well, all we can do is go in circles, you shout subjective, I shout objective, you shout subjective again, on and on. Same with the other guys here. So, perhaps we should stop, at least I will. I appreciate that particularly you went extensive on the matter, among the first. — RAW

I didn’t shout, I did my best to explain. It just doesnt seem like the counterpoints are registering to you, maybe Ive not made them well enough.
Anyway, suit yourself.

So in this extension of your previous thoughts you kind of admit that what you said earlier is incorrect but still you insist on "it's entirely subjective". — RAW

Its not an admission of anything, I was anticipating your counter argument which you just repeated instead of addressing my pre-emptive point. Then you created a fantasy where I was admitting to something.

Again with the "it's all subjective". Each individual will have nearly the same feelings about all of those things precisely for the reason/s I stated prior. Let me put it again, a subjective feeling by each of us of being torn apart by a pack of apex predators would be the same, we can all agree even in the absence of such experience that it's a profoundly terrible painful experience to go trough. Same goes for the other things in the negative list. The positive list? A subjective feeling by each of us of having an orgasm for example, is the same. My subjective experience of orgasm cannot possibly be "greatly" different than yours. It's one and the same thing.

So, we have consensus regarding both sides yet somehow, somehow, comparisons we do would be entirely subjective and greatly different. That's nonsense.

It really appears to me that you just subconsciously admitted that the asymmetry is true but consciously you refuse to accept it. Because I listed some of the greatest pleasures a life can offer (missed eating a delicious food) and yet you still think the bad side is far overweight. It really does look like an admission. Lets check this. Let us you do the positive list. Can you list about the same number of positive things I listed that aren't "petty and fleeting". Name positive feelings that, to you, are more intense and lasting than what has been listed or if you will, as intense and lasting as the examples on the bad side listed. — RAW

I already addressed these points, your are just repeating yourself.
Also, it is pure fantasy on your part that you have any idea what Im doing subconsciously.
Also, I didnt say “entirely subjective”, you did. I understand that there are commonalities between these experiences, but the experiences are subjective, there are differences in how people experience those bad things and how they let those experiences define whether life is worth living or not.

Lastly, you aren’t really addressing the points made. You are very focused on repeating your original points/argument, essentially just rewording your original stuff. If you are just repeating your original points that means you are not responding to counter points being made. Think about it.

Again, let's see your positive list that would establish the balance to say the least. Please, name 5-6 things that aren't petty and fleeting. — RAW

It would be as trivially easy as you listing bad ones. To what end?
The only reason I referenced your list was to point out how little thought you actually put into the positive ones. This speaks to my main point against you so far which is the skewed way you are looking at this. Focus on negative, ignore or marginalize the positive.
Skewed by your own subjective sense of the issue. Thats fine, whatever floats your boat. Other people do the same thing but vice versa.
Your argument isnt based in logic, its based on your pessimistic sense of the world. Im not saying you aren’t making use of logic, just that you do not have the objective, logical basis you think you do.

What is completely subjective? — RAW

Peoples ideas about whats good or bad about life and which ones are worthwhile tradeoffs. Thats going to vary greatly from person to person. Even if we accept that certain things are bad to everyone, it still wouldn't resolve anything about what bad things outweigh what good things and vice versa.

Can you be more specific, measure what, pain against pleasure? Consider this, an orgasm, having a wild sex with Charlize Theron, you being lucky you got the dream job, a child, a girl you wanted, PC to play a video game you really like -VS- you being eaten alive by a pack of lions, torn apart slowly by a giant bear, freezing to death, having your limbs cut off and living for the rest of your life with PTSD in a wheelchair unable to do anything without assistance, I mean I can go on and on and more disturbing? — RAW

This is all subjective. Each individual will have feelings and opinions about which of these things outweighs the others. Many people think having kids is worth the hardships of parenting, others do not.
Also your examples are completely one sided. All the negative ones are death and horror and the positive ones are almost all petty and fleeting.
Remember when I said you exalted the negative over the positive? Well thats what you’ve done here. Every point you are making is skewed towards the negative and thats your own subjective opinion about how the bad outweighs the good. That's true for you, but not for everyone.
You must be a pessimist in order for your arguments to work, and not everyone views things that way.

Which side of the two is sensationally stronger and more life impacting? — RAW

This depends on the person. Also, refer to my point about your skewed examples. Like look at your two lists, you picked some of the worst things you could think of for the negatives and the positives you picked sex and sex and work and “child” and sex again and a video game…
Do you honestly think you’ve made fair comparisons here? If those are the best things that you think life has to offer then you either lack imagination or need to broaden your horizons considerably and I mean that in the kindest, most helpful possible sense.

A person suffers in life but feels it's worth all the good stuff in it?

I'm not getting what you're trying to say here or what's the importance of it to what we're discussing here. I'm talking about life as a whole, taking every sentient being into account, not just some guy that had a terrible car accident and is in heavy pain but is still happy because his 3 kids survived without a scratch and are enjoying life. It's a bad deviant argument. — RAW

The point I was trying to make there was about the subjective nature of the measurements you are making regarding good and bad. Hopefully what I said above provides some clarity.