VisorCentral.com - One Year On

Pages (24): « First ... « 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- One Year On (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=26965)

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-18-2002 06:37 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
So your observations that "that's not the way the world works" is beside the point because I'm saying how it should work.

You weren't saying "this is how the world should work" when you defended Yardie's assumption that Jewish people favor war with Iraq.

quote:
because I'm saying how it should work

OH MY GOD! Did you actually post that? Really, I think I don't need you to tell me how the world should work. No matter how sincere or well-intentioned you may be.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-18-2002 06:41 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Excuse me while I spit liquid all over my monitor.

Heh, heh. Funny.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 06:41 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

If war is not a morally charged issue, what is?

In this case, your notion of whether or not it is "right" to overthrow Sadam is not cause for me judging you to be a good person or not. So in this case, in my mind, there is no moral weight to your decision on this war. However, if you say "we need to go to war to kill all arabs" well, then, that's a different story.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 06:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

You weren't saying "this is how the world should work" when you defended Yardie's assumption that Jewish people favor war with Iraq.

OH MY GOD! Did you actually post that? Really, I think I don't need you to tell me how the world should work. No matter how sincere or well-intentioned you may be.

We've since moved from the world of statistics to morals. Answer me this: if no one ever thinks about how things should be, how do we ever progress? If you a constantly ruminating over the present, you'll be doomed to never progress. What did Mr. Shaw say about seeing things as they are?

Posted by John Nowak on 10-18-2002 06:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
In this case, your notion of whether or not it is "right" to overthrow Sadam is not cause for me judging you to be a good person or not. So in this case, in my mind, there is no moral weight to your decision on this war. However, if you say "we need to go to war to kill all arabs" well, then, that's a different story.

Why the distinction?

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-18-2002 06:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
We've since moved from the world of statistics to morals.

But wasn't that your original point you kept harping on, one that I said I didn't agree to--that there was a distinction between assuming something about someone and it being factually wrong and assuming something about someone and it being morally wrong. And me saying assuming someone about someone based on their religion is just wrong wrong?

You never really answered my question: If J. Happel was personally offended by your assumption, do you think that it was wrong?

quote:
me this: if no one ever thinks about how things should be, how do we ever progress?

You can think about how things should be all you want, there, Slick. Just don't presume to tell me how I should think things should be.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 06:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

Why the distinction?

Because I believe the argument of protecting people (Kurds, Kuwaitis, etc) is a noble aim, genocide is not. I trust you agree.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 07:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

But wasn't that your original point you kept harping on, one that I said I didn't agree to--that there was a distinction between assuming something about someone and it being factually wrong and assuming something about someone and it being morally wrong. And me saying assuming someone about someone based on their religion is just wrong wrong?

The distinction I've been making all along is it depends on what you are assuming. If it is a morally neutral fact, why is it (morally) wrong? If it is not, of course it's (morally) wrong. Don't go assuming being Jewish implies greediness. Obviously not!

quote:
You never really answered my question: If J. Happel was personally offended by your assumption, do you think that it was wrong?

I did answer your question: "If he offended by the notion that someone is under the impression that more Jewish people favor war than don't, I think he needs to rethink his views.... Remember, in my framework, wanting war against Iraq is no more offensive than prefering orange M&Ms." There are things that people shouldn't be offended by. For instance I'm not offended if you are surprised I like classical music. Because I realize that in making the assumption that I don't, you weren't thinking "oh he's a bum because he doesn't like classical music." My claims here are nothing spectacular but yet it keeps being twisted into somehow saying I support judging people before I meet them. Indeed judging is the last thing one should do as it requires a whole host of information. Judging is not the same as hypothesizing.

What this has come down to is that I refuse to ignore things that have been ignored by others because by recognizing them they couldn't avoid judging people.

quote:
You can think about how things should be all you want, there, Slick. Just don't presume to tell me how I should think things should be.

You're right, and of course you never once said how things should be done.

All you do is rehash reality. You hold no opinions whatsoever.

Posted by Toby on 10-18-2002 07:07 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
You may consider it be a morally charged issue but I don't.

Then you are clearly not sane.

quote:
I'm sorry you look down on someone because of their view on this issue.

I'm not looking down upon anyone for the view upon this issue.

quote:
That must cause a lot of problems.

Why would it?

Posted by Toby on 10-18-2002 07:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
We've since moved from the world of statistics to morals.

I think you're the only one who ever belabored the delusion about being purely in the world of statistics.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 07:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Then you are clearly not sane.[B]I'm not looking down upon anyone for the view upon this issue.[B]Why would it?

I'm clearly not sane? Why's that? If you think someone is a good/bad (in any degree, not necessarily binary) person because of their views on Iraq, it would cause problems because the data on the case is such that reasonable, moral people can come down on either side of the issue. I try to enjoy the presence of reasonable/moral people. If I were to dislike a great number of them, I'd feel bad. That is the problem to which I refer.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 07:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
I think you're the only one who ever belabored the delusion about being purely in the world of statistics.

When making academic argument (such as the logic behind the science of statistics) you indeed live in a theoretical world. Newton lived in a theoretical world, and I wouldn't want to call him a failure, do you?

Posted by Toby on 10-18-2002 07:15 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
[...] You never really answered my question: If J. Happel was personally offended by your assumption, do you think that it was wrong?

I want to see that survey too, BTW. The one that showed that we can determine someone's position on the middle east by knowing if they're jewish.

quote:
You can think about how things should be all you want, there, Slick. Just don't presume to tell me how I should think things should be.

That's right. I'm the only one allowed that right. ;�~~~~

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 07:18 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
[B]I want to see that survey too, BTW. The one that showed that we can determine someone's position on the middle east by knowing if they're jewish.

Ask what's his name. I never claimed one existed. I simply claimed the logic behind a statement was sound.

Posted by Toby on 10-18-2002 07:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I'm clearly not sane? Why's that?

Because you seem to have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-18-2002 07:23 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I did answer your question

Please humor me. Please answer it again. It is a yes or no question.

"If J. Happel was personally offended by your assumption, do you think that it was wrong?"

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 07:24 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Because you seem to have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.

Again, it comes down to seeing things as they are and seeing things as they should be. Reality is just that: where we are today. Where we are headed is fantasy. Civil rights in the 50's? Fantasy. Abolotion in the 1850's? Fantasy. I'm not claiming to be Abe Lincoln or Martin Luther King Jr. but to put me down because I am trying to better the world seems like a waste of time.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 07:25 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

Please humor me. Please answer it again. It is a yes or no question.

"If J. Happel was personally offended by your assumption, do you think that it was (morally) wrong?"

No.

I already answered this twice! It isn't somethign that should be mulled over. If someone is offended by the color of my sneakers, that's just too bad. Likewise with every other issue in this world with no bearing on someone's worth as a human being.

PS I changed your quote for clarification.

Posted by Toby on 10-18-2002 07:26 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
When making academic argument (such as the logic behind the science of statistics) you indeed live in a theoretical world.

You really do have trouble reading, don't you? The logic behind the science of statistics was never in question.

quote:
Newton lived in a theoretical world, and I wouldn't want to call him a failure, do you?

Newton didn't live in a theoretical world.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-18-2002 07:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
You really do have trouble reading, don't you? The logic behind the science of statistics was never in question.[B]Newton didn't live in a theoretical world.

What do you mean the logic behind stats was never in question. Answer me this: Knowing the presence of a trait in a population will allow you to predict with above chance accurary (50%) its presence in a random member of that population.

If you answer is as before, you will say no. And you will be contradicting the logic of statistics.

Newton did live in a theoretical world, simplified of the concepts of relativity.

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:33 AM.

Pages (24): « First ... « 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page