kojikun wrote:Darth Wong wrote:Hardly. Objectivism is as closely related to the scientific method as masturbation is. Although in your case, it appears that objectivism and masturbation are themselves closely related.
By convincing lemmings who follow it that its ethics are somehow more objective and logical than everyone else's, by telling them that the whole dog and pony show is based on the scientific method.
Begging the question. You're restating your assertion as supporting evidence. Again, what about Objectivism is anti-scientific-method.
The mere fact that it incorporates an ethical system proves that it is not the scientific method, dumb-ass.
Then why do you insist that involuntarily supported social programs are unethical, when they are in fact an ethical necessity?
They cause less harm then to just remove them, as they are now; but that does not make them ethical, just less harmful.
In other words, you do not believe in ethics as a choice of best actions to take in any given situation, but rather, as a totally unrealistic, unachievable, useless pie-in-the-sky ideal which has nothing to do with reality and which is completely useless for guiding personal actions since it routinely recommends that which is impossible. I hope you were joking about your plans to someday become an engineer, Koji. Because you have the WRONG ATTITUDE for it.
I'll conceed to this. But I would like you to justify your claim that man has a responsibility to others merely because those others exist.
Social responsibility is related to the concept that suffering is bad (a widely accepted tenet). If your suffering is bad, then it logically follows that other peoples' suffering is bad as well. Moreover, systems of ethics which revolve entirely around individuals are worthless, because ethics is exclusively concerned with how we interact with others, not with how we behave in a vacuum. Therefore, ethics is invariably a social system, and as such, the merits of any ethical system must be weighed based in part upon its impact on society, not just you.
Have you not been reading? I said I support a system identical to the Canadian one, with all its benefits (ie, helping those who cant afford it), but only having it be volitional.
Then it would
not be identical to the Canadian system. It would just be a big charity organization, and it would fail. Once again, you refuse to support anything but impossible Peter Pan pie-in-the-sky solutions. Ethics is about making decisions, not decrying every available option in favour of impossible pipe dreams.
I asserted a negative: a lack of something. It is your burden to prove that someone is entitled to that which they have not earned nor possess. C'mon, stop demanding that I justify my positive assertions without justifying your own positive assertions.
Tu Quoque fallacy. When challenged, I provided a justification for my claims. Your turn.
Bullshit. The poor in Canada are far better off than the poor in America. I've been through American slums and I've been through Canadian slums. There is no comparison. Moreover, I never see telethons raising money on Canadian TV so that some little kid can get critical surgery, because WE DON'T NEED THEM. I have seen such things on American TV, and quite often.
Yes, and it is a shame. And Canadian welfare ends suffering in the shortterm, no doubt about that. But it is not a solution to end suffering.
What the fuck does that mean? The system is working. You have conceded the point, and effectively admitted that your earlier statement of its failure was ignorant bullshit. In order to save face, you mumble that although the system is working, it is not "a solution to end suffering". What the fuck does that mean? What
is a solution to end suffering?
Hi Kojikun, did you know that virtually everything is based on empirical observation? The fact that something is based on empirical observation does not validate it, nor does it justify your asinine claim that "Objectivism is the scientists view of reality and knowledge".
Your fucking stupid logic looks like this: "B is based on A, and C is also based on A, therefore C=B"
Hardly. Firstly, objectivism is an extension of scientific views of reality to other topics of philosophy.
So? Lots of things employ (or abuse, in this case) certain aspects of science, but you have claimed that objectivism IS science. You are just too prideful to admit you were wrong. Even creationists selectively employ portions of science, for fuck's sake. It doesn't mean that it is equivalent, or that it can borrow any of the credibility of science.
Secondly, I never claimed that two things based on the same thing are the same.
Wrong. You claimed ""Objectivism is the scientists view of reality and knowledge".
You believe that anyone who is poor must have chosen to be poor, rather than suffering an unexpected, unpredictable setback.
No, I was speaking of only those who have chosen actions which result in their poverty. That was obvious because I used verbs that, incase you didn't know, require volition.
Not every action which results in poverty can be
foreseen to result in poverty, you idiot. Do you think the real world is so predictable?
You believe that there should be no safety net: people who fail should be allowed to die, suffer horribly, starve, etc.
Again, no. Just no safety net that forces others to support it.
In other words, no safety net at all since nobody will pay for this.
Every time someone challenges you to justify these moral judgements, you simply repeat them as if they were fact.[/list]
Sound accurate?
Uh, no, what sounds more accurate is that people here are claiming certain things (ie, right to others property, ethical responsibility, etc) without supporting THOSE claims.
The outcome of our proposals is less suffering. Your proposal, on the other hand, is totally unworkable and you have even admitted that it won't work, yet you still claim that it is the only ethical one. As I said, you obviously view ethics as an impossible pie-in-the-sky ideal rather than a method of choosing the best course to take in any given situation. Utterly useless.
