Points you can't argue against?

[Tharwen]

Nazi and Stalin's regimes were fundamentally bad, what with killing millions of people and all. If you try to argue against it, your logic is flawed. And you have no respect for human life.

That simply depends on which fundaments of the regimes you're arguing about, and what the individual thinks of them.

 

[Crazycat690]

Two words, Chuck Norris. Nothing else is certain knowledge, I cant be sure for example that Africa exists since Ive never been there. It may all be lies! But oh soo good lies indeed.

Chuck Norris? never heard of this "Thing". is it something you drink? An energy drink? Have you touched it and held it in your arms? If not then how can you be sure it exists?

I see your point, it was mostly a joke, but its true you could doubt everything you havent seen with your own eyes, touched with yout hands or felt with your sences. But I chose to not care and just live.

 

[Deleted]

How about the classic trio:
Lets see You do better!
You're just jealous!
if you don't like it don't read/watch/play it!

 

[Smagmuck_]

<--- How awesome my avatar is...

 

[Kinguendo]

How about the classic trio:
Lets see You do better!
You're just jealous!
if you don't like it don't read/watch/play it!

Oh I have heard a stupid variant of the last one...

- No one is forcing you to watch it or hate it.

I just thought "Oooh, so close... you almost said something right, almost.".

 

[teisjm]

Tits or GTFO. Doesn't matte rit its a chick or a guy. The can't argue, they can only show tits or GTFO, cause unless you're doing it wrong you're gonan ignore them unless they do one of the two

 

[Deleted]

How about the classic trio:
Lets see You do better!
You're just jealous!
if you don't like it don't read/watch/play it!

Oh I have heard a stupid variant of the last one...

- No one is forcing you to watch it or hate it.

I just thought "Oooh, so close... you almost said something right, almost.".

Don't forget the common fallacy:
''if you don't like it why'd you read it?'' this one just grinds my gears

 

[WINDOWCLEAN2]

The Cake IS a lie

 

[The_Ghost_Ninja]

Wow, so many... How about

Air is good, for those who wish to live... Huh? Like that one?

Tell that to an organism that does not breathe air

They haven't the capacity to Contemplate upon formalities such as good and bad
KING ME

 

[The_Ghost_Ninja]

Whoops double post!

How about the classic trio:
Lets see You do better!
You're just jealous!
if you don't like it don't read/watch/play it!

Freedom of opinion choice, and the emotional anonymity through text blurps
also, "Tits or gtfo"? Go back to 4chan XD

 

[Pimppeter2]

Invading France is fun

 

[funguy2121]

(1)You can, if you decide, to deconstruct anything, but you've only done so in your head and the conclusions to which such an exercise brings you may or may not have any real world applications.

That applies to every thought I've ever had...

Anyone who's ever encountered a bully in jr. high knows that there is evil in the world.

Now I'm no psychologist, but a bully seems to be an exellent example. Usually they are normal people, driven into their actions by their own misfortune, possible bad parenting and misdirected anger.

(2)These actions are seen as inappropriate, by societys rules, and normal moral codes, wich are based on the well being of the majority, and emotions. That's why they are seen as evil.

As for the creation of an evil-meter, as you seem to suggest, bah, I'm not interested. I may not be able to MEASURE evil but I can certainly IDENTIFY it.

(3)Now, I hate to do this, but how exactly is evil a real phenomenon, when it can be only identified by arbitrary directives?

Now, understand, I'm not suggesting that it's not also a word thrown around by certain shady politicians (*cough*Bush*cough*) to paint whomever opposes them as naughty little boys or justify the unjustifiable. (4)I don't think you could effectively characterize rape and murder as anything but evil.

Right, I can't. But here's the catch, in medievil times they were seen as acceptable under certain conditions.

After all, if good and evil are just constructs then there should be no incentive to obey any laws or any moral code whatsoever, and if you and I met in person who was bigger would kill the other and steal his belongings.

(5)Since when has something needed to be real, for the human mind to see it as such?

(6)As for other reasons to obey laws, fear of punishment and the fact that rules are(mostly) created for the good of society, and you could realise that you're a part of it and what's good for it, is good for you. Wich is the reason why we have feelings that cause the consept of good and evil. Since (7)we are herd animals, and all that we really have is our numbers, such things like quilt and compassion are required.

You arguing that free will doesn't exist, proves that it exists. Tell me, what force do you suppose is benefitting from deluding us into thinking that we have any say in our own lives, and what is your evidence that all of our senses are lying to us?

See, in the absence of absolutely irrefutable evidence (and that seems to be pretty damned scarce), siding with the unfeasible just seems counterintuitive.

(8)Ok, for me it all comes down to wether or not souls exists, wich eventually comes to consepts that are as far as I know, beyond the human mind, so im giving it a 50/50.

Since you went and said it cant be argued against, I'm going with the whole determinism thing.

(9)So no force needs to benefit or no reason for life needs to exist. And it could be that if every bit of info could be had and put in a super computer from the big bang, you could caculate what every particle will ever do. And every problem with that theory is simply because humans are too stupid.

(1)Well, if none of your thoughts have real world applications, then why are we talking about the real world at all?

(2)That's why they ARE evil. Real evil isn't the bad guy in a Michael Bay film, who's just rotten to his core for no good reason. Revenge, greed, ignorance and envy are all causes of real evil.

(3)"Arbitrary directives." I've already addressed this on this thread twice. I don't even understand how it can be considered arbitrary. We'll address this when we get to rape and murder.

(4)I believe you're referring to murder, not rape and if you are, it was not seen as acceptable under certain circumstances. Rather, it was defined somewhat differently, because of the differences between a democracy today and a backward feudal society. And I guess I'll go ahead and ask this again: If some dick despot in a hellhole in Africa thinks it's okay to kidnap children and turn them into child soldiers, does that make something ok in your book? Does that un-evil the act in your book? If a dictator is using rape as a war crime, would you defend him at Geneva because "the government" decided it was okay? Remember, in mideval times, it was hardly a system of, by and for the people.

(5)A.Relevance?
B."The Human Mind." I think you're venturing dangerously close to "human nature"/"common sense" territory. I'm not a mystic and neither are quite a few other rational people.

(6)It seems you don't believe in good, either.

(7)Is that really what you think of us? Maybe we are herd animals, but we're a helluvah lot more than that.

(8)Why? I don't believe in a soul at all, and I still believe in free will. Because, once again, why would I not trust any of my senses? I may as well kill myself right now!

(9)I must confess, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Life is separate from death.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Invading France is fun

What's with you and France?

Life is separate from death.

Are you arguing about times linear/non-linear fashion or simply philosophy over the differences between the two states?

I think simple philosophy. Death is a term constructed by humans as the term for being without life. So in that sense, they're two logical opposites.

 

[havass]

The opposite sex is complicated.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Invading France is fun

What's with you and France?

Life is separate from death.

Are you arguing about times linear/non-linear fashion or simply philosophy over the differences between the two states?

I think simple philosophy. Death is a term constructed by humans as the term for being without life. So in that sense, they're two logical opposites.

Well to this I would argue.

the loss of one hair does not make one bald. Therefore a person who is bald never had a full head, and a person who isn't cannot become one.
Using this little analogy, at what point, does one die?

Well, that's not a question of what, that's a question of when. Through simple human eyes, we cannot observe that, but we do now that death is separate from life, cause when you are dead, you have no life. There may be some deeper mysteries, but when it comes around, death is nothing but a term created by humans, with the definition also created by humans.