Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/27/13 10:36 PM, poxpower wrote: I have answered both of those points already.

1. The cost would be meager compared to the cost of supporting children, invalids and criminals for a lifetime or probably even just one year. A vasectomy costs only a few hundreds of dollars.

Don't forget female sterilisation. Plus the ramping up of police spending you're going to have to do when a tenth of your population (being generous to you here, the actual number is probably higher and then there's the rest of the population who would find such measures repulsive) starts rioting.

2. The reduction in population would be operated on the least productive and most cash-sucking portion, thus raising the overall productivity of each taxpayer.

Okay, this is where the idiocy of people who really believe this shit shine through. Money does not disappear when it is given via social security. People who need that money just to survive will spend all of it. This generates economic activity. SNAP, to take the example that generated this thread, produces something close to a 2:1 return. Not to mention that wage poverty is a thing and a lot of people who recieve benefits actually do work.

But now that I've covered this so anyone naieve enough to think you're sincere will think twice when encountering these arguments in the wild I'm done. I don't know if you think you're being bold and daring by playing extreme devil's advocate all the time but it actually stifles productive discussion because everyone has to stop to address you. Unless that's the point, which is actually kind of sad.

At 10/27/13 04:54 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/27/13 03:37 PM, Pontificate wrote: You don't really believe that shit, don't be ridiculous.

Feel free to disagree with my arguments, there's like 2 entire pages worth of it in this thread alone.

I'm not saying you haven't argued for your position. All I'm saying is you haven't been arguing in good faith, instead you've chosen an extreme, contrarian view and defended it to provoke a reaction. If you really believe what you've stated you'd be a monster.

And because I can't help my self (well done you got me) you'd also be an idiot as these measures would not be practical for two main reasons (and you just love you some good old fashioned rational practicality don't you)- firstly it would cost a hell of a lot to implement and enforce these procedures (the poor aren't going to be able to afford expensive medical procedures and they're definitely going to resist pretty hard) and secondly you've just reduced the future population of the U.S. by somewhere between 10-15% (based on data pre-global recession so that may be even higher now) presuming each one of those households would produce only one child (unlikely as poorer households tend to produce more offspring). That's a sizeable chunk of the market vanished which is, no matter how much some people masturbate to supply side economics, going to have some pretty serious economic ramifications.

At 10/27/13 03:18 PM, poxpower wrote: Yeah not only was I a moderator long before you even joined the site, but I was also trolling before that word replaced "not agreeing".

Hey man you're welcome to disagree with me. I have no idea what your real opinions are but whether they align with mine or otherwise that's no skin off my nose. I'm calling you a troll because you just suggested an entire (pretty goddamn sizeable considering income distribution in the U.S.) section of a country's population be forcibly sterilised. You don't really believe that shit, don't be ridiculous. Still, I'm sorry about thiking you weren't a mod back in the day.

Anyway long time no see, how was your 12th birthday at the special ed school this year? Are you allowed candles on your cake yet? You're a big boy now, you only need visual supervision when you sit-down pee and I hear you're well on your way to mastering the zipper of your jeans, so you should get at nice birthday cake!

Haha, cute. This must be some meta irony shit or you'd be a person who actually defended themselves against accusations of trolldom and then immediately wrote this.

At 10/16/13 10:02 PM, poxpower wrote: Fuck the poor. -Editor's note: this is paraphrased from a larger, more hilarious, body of text.

Haha, I haven't even looked at these fora in years but how exactly did the biggest troll the politics board ever had, who's still at it from the looks of things, get made a moderator? Seriously, that's pretty fucking impressive work there Pox. Well done.

At 9/13/10 04:13 AM, drDAK wrote: People like you shouldn't be allowed to vote, or reproduce. In fact, I'm very content in actually denying you any of the rights of a thoughtful person because, well, you're a Neanderthal. Well, Homo neanderthalensis had a big brain, so you would most definitely be the missing link. Want to turn yourself in?

Anyways, it seems you are butthurt about being wrong about most things in life, including but not limited to politics, and your sad existence is a shame to what you call traditionalism.

You know it's alright not to respond if you can't think of an actual argument, sport? Don't get me wrong, the man (boy?) displayed considerable ignorance but your little love letter to his demise only makes you look as ignorant as him.

As for the main premise of the thread: any culture advising another that it needs to be more like them is neo-colonialism. Outrage is not an Islam specific cultural trait; it is, however, facilitated in the Islamic world by lingering resentment towards the West and a ruling class more than happy to exploit that for political gain. It is also rather exagerrated by a similar faction in the West for similar reasons: the very images posted in this thread were from an extreme minority condemned by Religious leaders. Without the Islamic boogeyman that protest is not dissimilar to the many political rallies held by the Christian right (though even the extremism finds a mirror in the murder of abortion doctors). That is not to mention the Muslims who fights for the freedoms we champion in their own countries; at much greater personal risk than the average westerner who must only casually brush off the biscuit crumbs from our guts as we reach for the permanent marker.

Outrage over petty things can be found in every culture on this Earth, it's a Human trait. Whilst we have protesters burning children's fiction for promoting 'witchcraft' any call to emulate us will, and should, fall on deaf ears.

No, you're affirming the consequent.

Your logic:
All pears are green, therefore everything that is green is a pear.

At 11/8/09 09:49 PM, Memorize wrote: It's because you're parents are illegals.

You know, I've seen a lot of posts from you over the years. Generally they're just dismissed straight away in to the special kind of apathy I reserve for idiots on the internet but occasionally, as you're probably delighted to know, they're so mouth-frothingly retarded I am actually irritated. In this instance, however, I'm just a little saddened: think about what you wrote without provocation and think about the sort of person that makes you. Now we've covered what a horrible human being you are, let's move on to how you're also an idiot with poor-reading comprehension.

How is giving tax payer money to fund abortion in any way Health-Care?

Firstly, his post actually stated that the added restriction was on private health-insurance. I may be wrong as I am not particularly familiar with the intricacies of the American health-care system but this suggests to me it has nothing to do with abortions being funded by tax payers. Secondly, whether you agree with abortion or not you cannot deny it still falls under the health-care umbrella as it is a medical procedure.

Isn't sad that we live in a society where you can kill a baby in the womb for any reason while at the same time being bared from ingesting a drug with temporary effects?

Isn't it sad that you will find any excuse to stand upon your soapbox? Everyone who could possibly care what you think on the matter (probably few to none) already knows, give it a rest.

Even better that tax payer money is used for both of these instances?

The provision in the bill apparently bans even private insurance paying for abortion so it's as about as far removed from 'tax payers' money funding abortions' as one could concievably get; surely this is a good thing in your eyes? That said I do find it rather ammusing that you, undoubtedly, support this measure despite the fact it infringes upon the freemarket you so laud.

I'm amazed how people who hate our current and horrible healthcare system would even dare support the bill.

Amazed that they support a bill that will change the healthcare system they currently hate? Really? I'd say that you're clearly not very good at logical reasoning but we already knew that.

-We spend more on Health Care than most socialized nations and this only increases that cost.

Do you have any figures to support this? I'm not saying I don't believe it but it'd be reassuring to get a look at the actual numbers. Anyway: the amount of money thrown at a problem is in no way an indication that the system works or that it doesn't work. This new reform might help or it might hinder but if it does it'll be due to how it works, not the amount of money invested in to making it work.

-The Insurance Corporations will now get Billions more.

To ensure that people have health insurance, yes. I believe this would largely be the point of any reform that didn't remove private insurance companies from the equation entirely, something I am sure you would abhor.

-The Drug Industry supported the bill and will now get even more money.

Your hatred of the drug industry confuses me. Yes they're blood sucking bastards but it's in the spirit of capitalism you claim to support so fervently. Besides they'd pretty much support any healthcare reform as long as it didn't seek to limit their scope as it opens up a whole new market for them flush with subsidy.

-The Government will increase their control of health care from 55% (And the supporters say we have a free market system...) to an even bigger number.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. It works perfectly well for other 1st world nations. Better, in fact: http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/quali tyquickstrikeaug2009.pdf. I'd suggest reading in entire report but the most pertinent information is on page 4.

It makes me laugh at how stupid some of you people are.

Yes, I've often found it's the fools who laugh the hardest. I suspect it's because they don't quite understand the joke.

I don't think you understand; the aim of such policies is not to appease the rich, but to attract and encourage big business by limiting the amount taken through income tax. Bigger business equals bigger tax revenue along with the advantages of more employment, a more stimulated economy etc. The idea, in theory, is that instead having a bigger slice from a small pie the government takes a smaller slice from a big pie.

The extent to which this is the most efficient system is, naturally, debatable but that's the reasoning behind it anyway.

At 8/23/09 06:22 PM, TDwizBang wrote: non agression pact with nazi germany?????

F, must try harder.

Oh and please, as unlikely as it is for the opportunity to arise, try not to breed.

Good lord, so many of you are just... astonishingly retarded. Like, 'fucked up chromosomes' retarded.

To address each issue in turn:

OP: Soldiers are not, in any which way, leaders. How you can go from listing Ceaser, Washington and Obama as examples (you know, actual leaders) to talking about soldiers is a little mind-boggling. Oh and a pact is not the same as an alliance, you pompous buffoon. The non-agression pact was made by Stalin knowing full well it would be broken at some point, Hitler had made his intentions towards the east very clear in both his attitude towards Communism and the concept of lebensraum. It was just to give both a little breathing room to mobilise. The 'evil communists' were on your side, deal with it.

White-hole: No, blood on your hands is often the defining characteristic of a great leader. As cruel and myopic it seems, people remember the bringers of bloody gold and war-torn security, not peace. Besides, some of the bloodiest rulers in history have been the lawbringers so it isn't quite so clear cut.

Jon-86: By your own logic you're a terrible leader, what with your proclamations of being the best and your pointless grab at attention. By my logic you're just a small-minded fucktard.

Warforger: Concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boer War. Also, whilst I agree with assessing Hitler from a non-emotional standpoint people are too quick to reduce the successes of Germany under the Reich to Hitler alone; preparing for war is a very efficient manner of re-mobilising an economy.

Neogeo57: Hey everyone, look at me! I have a tiny shrivelled cock so I overcompensate for that by sitting on the hard, throbbing erection of jingoism. Please don't make any percieved slights against America because each one makes it go a little softer and I just need to feel it pounding away at my insides.

Bgraybr: He took those 'small, insignificant countries' for a reason you dithering idiot. To begin with it was to test the other western powers and see how willing they would be to intervene, after that it was in preperation for advancing outwards. He couldn't 'just invade' Britain, what with several countries being in the way and the fact they're seperated by the fucking sea. Also, why mention France? You do know he conquered it, right? All of it. Very quickly. Something they failed in WWI. As for tactics, well the Blitzkreig was possibly the most succesful tactic of the entire war and was used to devastating effect in Poland. If you're going to question his decisions, at least base them on genuine fuck-ups like the invasion of Russia. An evil man, with truly descipable and foul ideals, but a great leader.

Mehrdad14: You know, why even bother? Anyone questioning your idea is just another one of 'Them' to you. At least take your private, superiority-complex jack-off fantasies to somewhere else.

As for the thread itself: Marcus Aurelius, if only because I have a soft-spot for philosopher kings. His Meditations is still a very poignant and relevant read nearly two thousand years later.

At 8/8/09 11:58 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/8/09 11:31 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Yeah, not enough detail to see if it applies. You didn't mention if the burglars were fighting back or fleeing, etc. But still, i don't know anything about Canadian law, and i won't claim to.

;;;
You didn't read closely enough !
Like i said, at the end.... kill the bastard & then the only story is "your story" & you can say whatever you want.
Like " he turned at the window & pulled a large kitchen knife out !"
He ain't alive to contest "your story" & if you had to go get a large kitchen knife & place it in his dead hand, so much the better for your story.
Like I said, you kill 'em & your story is the only one there is, chances are better than not ,that no jury in the world will vote to convict you ;)
You could also do like another guy who killed a robber in his driveway, he got off as well. Protecting his family from an ongoing threat...now buddy will never be back to threaten them again. The average working class person has a real hate on for thieves, make them out to be violent or possibly violent & you get off around here anyway !

I seriously, seriously hope this is satire. Otherwise you are exactly the sort of scum who, in your scenario, gets killed. The only difference between you and your murdered thief is that you're too much of a passive-agressive coward to act on your sociopathic urges. You're also retarded because you seem to be forgetting forensic evidence that counts more than someone's story in court: if you shoot someone in the back, the police will know that person has been shot in the back due to them being able to deduce the point of entry.

In England we are granted the right to self-defense, as a previous poster mentioned it has to be proportionate however. It is exactly the same in most American states (forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've heard some fairly gung-ho stuff about Texan law in this regard) and so the website posted is really just misrepresenting the facts to further their own political agenda. No matter how valid that agenda is such tactics mark them as below contempt.

In everyone's fear ongering, self-righteous indignity, do not forget that in this situation a person died. They did not need to die and, according to the law, did not deserve to die for their actions (presuming they hadn't been shot, but instead arrested). Therefore his death was wrong and the law exists specifically to redress wrongs.

"Hey, there do seem to be a lot of threads about Communism on the BBS. How can I solve this? I know! I'll make a topic about Communism!"

Look, Newground's target demographic is teenage social outcasts and pseudo-intellectuals. Accordingly, a large amount of them will have Communist sympathies. Many will also be anti-Communist for equally vapid reasons. It's nothing we haven't seen before so either add to the debate or don't bother; your current arguement makes you sound as ridiculous as the very people you mock.

At 7/24/09 06:39 PM, fli wrote: Obviously there's something wrong when a highly educated and successful Black professor gets arrested. And he asked for a badge number, and the police says he's misbehaving.

I don't think the officer is racist (he does teach how not to not profile.)

You do realise the inherent absurdity in what you wrote, right? You commend the police officer for avoiding profiling in the same breath as you condemn him for arresting a well-educated professor.

At 4/14/09 09:38 PM, Korriken wrote: The flaw with the whole "let's not punish everyone, let's just rehabilitate them and let them go" theory is that some people simply cannot be rehabilitated, they WANT to kill, they WANT to rob, they WANT to rape, they WANT to deal drug, etc. You can't rehabilitate someone against their own will.

Apparently you're one of them. I mean really, in what world can someone self-righteously proclaim 'I would happily murder, rape and steal were it not for these pesky laws' as if they were in the right?

Well you seem to confuse the 'can' part of the American Dream with 'will'. Now don't get me wrong, in many cases people really cannot improve themselves due to poor life decisions on their part or an extremely impoverished upbringing but social mobility isn't about everyone moving between classes, it's about having the ability to do so if you are gifted, hard-working or just rather lucky and in America, indeed in much of the civilised world, one can see those opportunities at play.

At 3/8/09 06:57 PM, Valjylmyr wrote: I don't get why people who call themselves atheist think Jesus isn't a real person. Sure, he may not have been the son of God. Sure, he may not have had magical powers. I mean, it's pretty much been proven that he was born. So, why do you say he's not real? Is it because you've been severely misinformed, or because you just go with what everybody else is saying?

Quite possibly because it's never been proven he existed; that no Roman records exist of this one fantastic messiah appear until centuries after his supposed death is fairly telling. Current thought on the subject postulates that he he is an amalgamation of one of the many prophets at that time with aspects of other mythology included (to what extent and from which is debateable however).

At 2/25/09 09:59 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: imo the lower you rank on ARTIFICIAL measurements of intelligence the smarter you are in my book.

That... That doesn't make any sense at all; especially as none of the participants would have actively tried to fail. Do you ever think about what you write? I know spouting off paradoxes generally have the effect of making one sound wittier and urbane but only when they hold a gleam of truth. I mean really, one cannot simply type out a few contradictory ideas purely because they contradict and expect people to go 'whoa man, that's deep'.

For that matter if we're going to get in to it all measurements are artifical. One might as well say 'in my opinion the shorter someone is according to an ARTIFICIAL measurement the taller they are in my book'. Fight the power! Down with the man and so forth.

Imagine how awesome africa would be if the white people had never fucked with it.

Probably not very; what with cultural isolationism inevitably resulting in stagnation regardless of race.

At 2/23/09 05:30 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Don't take this the wrong way, but I already put forth that you should assume majority public support is already on board. This is a topic about the purely political obstacles that would arise. And many conservatives are against it still. As they no doubt would be irl.

Perhaps you meant to but if you read your post that's not how you phrased it. The most given was, seperate from the question I might add, 'even if they had public support' which does not suggest that they have public support but rather it would be difficult even if they did; a rhetoric device to get across the extreme difficulty of the situation rather than explaining the hypthetical itself.

This could also pose another question, what state of finances would the country have to be in to resort to such a thing? Would the economy have any say in it at all? I would doubt it, but you never know.

I'd argue that if the economic times had anything to do with it it'd be during prosperous times rather than a desperate state as you imply; drug abuse (rather than use) traditionally soars during such times and with it the evils that brings giving a (false) negative impression. Additionally it is during economic downturns that, generally, the conservative mindset is most popular (whether any current political party is currently actually conservative is up for debate).

Mayhap I'm simply naive but one would hope that, according to democratic principals, change will occur when the majority shift their views on the subject. If this will ever occur is doubtful but it could be achieved through education and genuine information so one must not lose all hope.

At 1/6/09 11:13 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Only in the sense of searching for a personal truth. Searching for a universal truth, as is the normal idea behind the search for truth, is always going to be fruitless as there is no such thing. 'Truth' is subjective, and to quote Aneurin Bevan, 'This is my truth, tell me yours'. We can both see the same thing, but the interpretation can be totally different.

Well I think it better to agree on the general definition of an objective truth else the debate will make little to no sense,

At 1/6/09 11:43 AM, AapoJoki wrote: What other options do science and academia have? For them, openness is crucial to get any results or progress at all, whatever their goal is. Even if truth was not number one on their agenda, there would still be someone who would use the openness to pursue it, and if not, the truth would still emerge as a by-product. Once discovered, there would be no way to keep that truth down, unless everyone in the academia is trained to harbor systematic bias and self-deceit through their careers.

Well it's more altering the search for truth its own sake. Concentrating, instead, on what would further humanity. It would be ridiculous to assert the active search for falsity as that would serve noone but rather shifting the honus. Think of it as not actively seeking to disprove something that is conveniant just because it is fale or preferring useful, comforting falsehood over an unpleasant truth.

Without openness, academia is worthless. Its role would be reduced to looking for things that are comfortable and using them to keep the masses sedated. There already are institutions that perform this job more efficiently than the academia would.

Yet academia currently serves a role that is occasionally to the detriment of the happiness of the masses; it would be removing a negative influence rather than instituting a positive one.

If the highest priority of the academia was to increase human happiness and well-being, by coming up with things that genuinely increase our standard of living, then it would still have to embrace openness as a requirement for the basic research needed to find these things. As I pointed out, this would lead to truth inevitably coming out at some point.

One can be open about what is false; this is entirely hypothetical and I am certain that such a system could not work without a very shift in the way we percieve the truth or what we desire from it. It's just a thought experiment that questions the validity of the current proclaimed goal of academia.

So, what's the point of having truth only as a secondary goal, or no goal at all? There's no way to avoid it in an open discourse and research. At what point could you say that some line of research is unfruitful, if human happiness is its goal? When would you cut the funds?

When that line of research uncovers something humanity would be happier not knowing; I'd rather the atom bomb had had its development stayed for example.

At 1/6/09 10:20 AM, therealsylvos wrote: Supporting falsity is paradoxical, thus truth is to be sought after.

Why? Why is it a paradox to support that which is false? Even if this is the case it does not follow that we must support truth; humanity supports, upholds and creates a great many paradoxes. The greatest hypocrite of all is the man who attempts to reveal the hypocrisies of society.

Something has come up here which I've often found and I think is one of the reasons atheists are viewed with a certain amount of hostility. The accusation that we do not wonder at the world; that we somehow do not possess the ability to marvel or imagine or create simply because we wish to understand the how, the why of it. It is an entirely different form of wonder and, indeed, morality; one that does not stem from the outside but from within. I see a tree in bloom I think it marvellous, I learn that this is a precursor to fruiting and I celebrate all the more. I learn that this fruit contains the seeds for this ridiculous, frivolous cycle to self-perpetuate and I am ecstatic, I learn that this has come about through millions of years of slow progress and improvement in a world beset by misfortune, I learn of this simple, pure struggle for survival and I cry tears of joy. Then I learn my reactions are merely chemical signals generated because I am predisposed to enjoy such sights, possibly to encourage fruit gathering amongst my ancestors, and I laugh.

A little, aha, flowery perhaps but it illustates my point; to simply see a sketch and take it as granted, to read the blurb of the universe and not wish to read any further in order to not ruin the mystery. To watch a magician and not wish to know how it is done, despite knowing it is a trick, because believing is simpler and comforting. To accept the moral precepts of a system outside of one's self without question because questioning is scary and we are told leads to punishment. This does not satisfy me and it does not satisfy empericists, sceptics, rationalists etc. It would be a wonderful thing if magic existed but preposterous to simply accept it without definite evidence or else I might as well embrace as many other wondrous, if false, concepts my mind can handle. The existance of Santa Claus would bring me much joy but false belief in him would be as hollow as his current existance.

At 1/5/09 09:00 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Hierarchies of meaning right? Bird > sparrow. My argument isn't against these. I've no problem calling a sparrow a bird. I've an issue calling a dog a bird.

Well naturally. It simply illustrates my point that how we use language affects our conception of reality; one can call an ocean water but by calling it ocean it connotes and, indeed, denotes something very different. It alters our emotional response.

Ehhh I don't want to get into whether the mind comes before the object or vice versa. I'll say subjectivity is a strong element in communication, but communication relies on shared subjectivity - some kind of consensus.

Agreed; hence the point that communication defines that consensus.

I figured that was a given. It'd be a pretty rare thing for two people to share the exact same attributions to a word, I think.

Well it goes deeper in to 'deep grammar' as it is termed; it's actually rather interesting as it both suggests and discredits Halliday's theories on the matter.

Beyond an explicit philosophical discussion of subjectivity/objectivity, people have a nasty habit of externalizing things - finding objective justifications for who they are. So I'd say regardless of its proponents it has been overstated :P

*chuckle* Very true.

At 1/5/09 08:48 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Even if living in a comfortable fantasy was a goal worth pursuing, it wouldn't be worth it if this is the price. If we can't give up truth without giving up our freedom, then most of us would rather have both than neither, whether we like the truth or not.

Again, I'm contemplating more of a shift in the very way academia and the sciences operate as opposed to an authoritarian censorship. I was merely complying with your request as to how such an authoritarian system might work.

At 1/5/09 08:10 PM, AapoJoki wrote: If this was the case, how would you make sure that the comfortable lies were propagated and the dangerous truth was kept hidden or discredited? I think humankind has come to a point where this is no longer possible. We've had free speech for so long that nobody wants censorship any more. Internet + no censorship = truth will always come out.

Well my intention is not so much to discuss the pragmatics of enforced falsehood but rather to question the very validity of searching for truth for its own sake as has been the norm. In which case it would call for a revolution in the way philospohers, theologians, scientists etc. operate rather than an authoritarian downward control. If I were to hazard a guess at how such a system would operate the standard isolation from the entire world; North Korea being a conveniant example even in the contemporaneous.

At 1/5/09 08:04 PM, THEJamoke wrote: Scientists search for fact, not truth. Truth can vary from culture to culture, person to person. That's why, in the thousands of years of philosophical debate we've yet to find it and most likely never will. That's not to say we shouldn't stop trying, but when it comes to the search for the intangible, it's a perpetual uphill climb.

Well that would imply truth, as we deem it, does not exist. It's an interesting point but for the sake of discussion I think it best to agree upon the commonly held defintion of truth, that isobjective truth.

Anywho, when you state scientist's search for facts you mean 'true facts'. As in, facts that are validated through reality. It is still a search for truth whether one chooses to speak the given or omit it.

At 1/5/09 07:43 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I was trying to figure out when changing a word changes a concept, but here you're juggling semantics. With the exception of H2O and its verbal form hydrogen oxide, the words you provide are not replacements for the word water.

Well of course I'm juggling semantics; we're discussing the ubiquitous influence of semantic properties. As for them not being replacements for water, perhaps not, but water is a replacement for them. They are all water, merely different conceptions of it that are essentially based on little but human interpretation. Hence the importance of semantic properties (and connotation) to influence our perception of the world. Are you familair with hypernyms/hyponyms? It would make my point much more succinct.

Treating your subjective reality as the end all be all causes problems when communicating with other people - like say for instance, redefining God, and then justifying it by saying everything is just another word for God.

Communication is an attempt to connect two subjective realities for the sake of expedience; I'm not discounting the existance of an objective reality merely that all communication has, ultimately, a subjective genesis. There is currently a rather popular theory in linguistic studies that noone truly speaks the same language, merely greater/lesser approximations.

I am dismissive of his argument, and its specific application. I am not dismissive of the power of subjectivity.... maybe... I'm dismissive of the abuse of subjectivity.

Absoloute moral relativism would be an abuse but I remain unconvinced of the true ubiquity of 'objective reality'. We all tacitly agree to uphold its importance, and it certainly exists with its myriad ramifications, delights and horrors, but its proponents have been overstating how pervasive it actually is.

At 1/5/09 07:38 PM, Drakim wrote: See, even if the ultimate goal of humanity was to simply net as much happiness as possible, how would we know the best method if we didn't have knowledge about anything? How can somebody who doesn't know the truth of everything ever claim to know the ultimate way to produce max happiness?

The problem here is your conflating knowledge with truth (and in doing so overestimating the utility of both); I'm not proposing anything but if I were playing devil's advocate I would be in favour of ignorance of knowledge that was objectively true but dangerous/harmful in favour for knowledge that was objectively false but useful/pleasing.

Even if humanity doesn't care about finding truth, truth remains perhaps the best tool for any other goal.

But is it? Many things are based on nothing or lies or superstition but are nonetheless incredibly useful.

Imperator recently made a comment in another thread that briefly mentioned the difference between can and should which made me think about the validity of truth. Is the pursuit of truth simply in order to find it a worthy goal?

On the one hand the search for truth is how many have defined themselves other the years: shamans, prophets, priests, theologians, philosophers and today scientists (occasionally I'm tempted to consider them merely different labels for different periods but now's not the time for that form of thought experiment); it has brought much to humanity and current scientific advancement is the biggest hope humanity has for the future. Illusion is generally considered negative, the naked flame of truth might burn but it would surely be a cleansing inferno. With all our fraudulent ghosts swept from our eyes we can see that promised future all the better. Blind men stumble etc. etc. Whichever metaphor appeals the most it all essentially indicates that while disillusionment is a painful process it is also a helpful one, much like the cleaning of a wound (I find the progression from metaphor to simile mirrors life to a surprisingly large degree).

On the other should humanity's goal not be to increase net happiness? Indeed if a lie makes one happy or is in some other way useful why must it be dispelled for a less pleasing or helpful truth? I have always called utilitarianism the morality of the accountant but on a superficial level I can find no better objective philosophy (no mean feat in this most essentially subjective of worlds). Why must we search for truth, for it's own sake? Life, afterall, is founded on lies: to paraphrase Pratchett 'grind the universe in to its tiniest components and you will not find an atom of justice, a molecule of morality'. The ties between the society and the individual are entirly phantasmal in nature, based on nothingness so that prosperity and security might bloom. Indeed we have created ruling entities to enforce these lies and given them dominion over us. To dispell all that for the truth? And what is truth? There is nothing to say for certain that an objective truth really exists, on whether it isn't just what we say it is and even if not would there even be a difference between the two?

I personally try to live a life as free from lies as possible, to understand the principles beneath them and even their necessity. In short to tacitly agree to uphold what I know to be false or based on nothing in order to maintain my happiness and the happiness of others.

Thoughts?