Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of Jason Orr
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Jason Orr

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
The Polling Pit / Re: Are Libertarians overly cynical?
« on: January 24, 2008, 10:46:53 PM »
I would guess that it's a biased sample.  In my experience, libertarians are some of the most optomistic and happiest people out there.

2
The Polling Pit / Re: Free will
« on: January 23, 2008, 07:23:44 PM »
Insufficient data.

3
my pussy tastes like candy

I question this.  Unless there exists vagina-flavored candy (which actually wouldn't surprise me)...

4
Not wearing any...

5
General / Re: Make Ron Paul A NY Times Bestseller
« on: January 12, 2008, 04:10:40 PM »
How were the money bombs not laissez faire in nature?  Because they had a donation cap?

6
General / Re: Painful Question
« on: January 12, 2008, 04:09:39 PM »
Liberty in itself has no value.  It is only useful insofar as it enables people to pursue their individual happiness.

Do people want to be happy?  I think so, yes.

7
The Polling Pit / Re: If you had to be evil....
« on: January 03, 2008, 04:08:01 PM »
You can be evil and be completely mindless with absolutely no choice.  One of the definitions of evil is "That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction."  Something can be malicious and destructive by nature.  Therefore evil. 

Exactly. The government is an example of evil that is essentially mindless due to its collectivist nature.



Yes, but a government is not a person.  A hurricane is not a person.  Almost any time you call a person "evil" you are referring to his/her moral nature, unless you are making a comment on that person's nature qua mechanical being, in the context of which this question makes no sense.  Why are the options terrorist, cop, serial killer?  Why not include tornado or plague?  The common feature throughout the options in the poll are their being evil as moral agents, not merely as mindless agents of destruction.  In fact, arguably the most contemptible aspect about each of the three options is the fact that they have minds, and yet choose to perform evil (in the material sense) - that is what makes them evil (in the familiar moral sense).

8
Because they understand their Natural Rights from a perspective of intelligence and humanity (or, at least most of them do) they percieve it to be a 1:1 ratio.  Equality.  I don't like pain, therefor, you - another human - don't like pain either.  Its based in empathy.  I would not like to have a chain put around my neck, therefor, you wouldn't like it either.  Even in a totalitarian regeme where no rights exist, people would understand you've violated the natural rights of a man if you walked up and shot him in the head. 


Of course, I do agree with you in the effect.  However, what you're describing here need not be in the language of natural rights.  You could describe the same principle in terms of universally preferable behavior or even rational egoism.  If empathy is the device which drives moral reasoning (and I think you're on to something there), then where do these natural rights come in?

To me, natural rights are just a way of phrasing broad-based conclusions in the realm of justice.  To say "x is a natural right" is just to say "it would be unjust to not have x" and nothing more.  Previous philosophers have muddled the issue by attempting to create a metaphysical basis for natural rights.  I think this is impossible since morality is not grounded in reality so much as it is in society, the sum of all human interaction.  Ethics is a social science to me.

9
And when those natural rights are broken, universally, people say "What the fuck!!?  You can't do that!!"  Thats how deep it is.  You can't murder.  You can't enslave someone.  You can't take their property which they've worked for, time=money=a part of their life was traded to be able to purchase that property.  And nobody can do that to you, either.  It doesn't matter whose countries flag flies over your head, you're still human. 

I'm going to assume you are not arguing that a right is that which creates subjective moral repulsion in a given number of people, which is what you seem to be saying here.

What exactly is a right, and how does one acquire them?  They seem to be entitlements, but from whom are they entitled?  If they come "from nature" then you either need to describe the mechanical processes at work in rights (which is absurd and impossible) or provide an a priori (i.e., with no reference to experience) proof describing why certain rights must exist.  I personally think this is impossible because morality itself is such that it is not necessary but preferable.

10
Personally I think the concept of natural rights blurs the ethical issue at hand.  Natural rights are a way to avoid conceding ethical egoism, which many ethicists consider to be taboo or patently false.

I, however, believe in some variety of egoism; I think believe that human beings evolved moral reasoning because it offered them a survival advantage to coexist with each other without killing each other.  Moral reasoning allows us to live as individuals in society.  It isn't about a natural right possessed by all people, although I suppose you could phrase it that way.  It's about ensuring that you won't be killed, and this behavior is preferable because offers a survival advantage.

Also, you don't need to believe in natural rights as a metaphysical entity in order to be libertarian.

Also, making crude and derisive remarks about someone's belief system is not the ideal way to begin a productive conversation.

11
The Polling Pit / Re: If you had to be evil....
« on: January 01, 2008, 11:02:24 PM »
The question is meaningless.  If you had to be evil, then you would have no choice in the matter (beyond, obviously, the choice you've provided).  However, this absolves all moral responsibility, and so it's impossible for you to be evil in this scenario.

12
The Polling Pit / Re: do you obey the law
« on: December 16, 2007, 10:22:27 PM »
The law often corresponds with my behavior.  I don't behave the way I do because it's the law but because I believe it's either morally right or prudent.

13
The Polling Pit / Re: Good Idea for Promoting Ron Paul For President?
« on: December 12, 2007, 10:57:17 AM »
It promotes Ron Paul, but I'm not sure what you mean by "good".  Do you mean effective as an efficiency equation factoring in number of votes gained per time spent campaigning?  If that's the case, then it probably isn't very effective.  In terms of just getting the name out on campus, though, it would be pretty effective.  I imagine you aren't the only one spending a lot of time in the library lately.

The stalls on my campus are filled with lewd poetry... some of which is actually kind of good...  Iambic pentameter and whatnot.

14
The Polling Pit / Re: slurs
« on: December 07, 2007, 10:51:23 AM »
Is the goal of this forum to eradicate racism?

15
The Polling Pit / Re: Which do you like best?
« on: November 28, 2007, 06:06:38 PM »
I'll go with the first.  All of those videos could use some sort of background music or noise, though.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9

Page created in 0.017 seconds with 31 queries.