2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Diogenes]

No, it's not "wrong" because I don't like it. I don't like it because it's wrong.

It is objectively wrong.

Obviously not or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What is obvious to someone standing on a cliff may not be obvious to someone in a cave. You have to acquire a better perspective.


Don't think in terms of this person or that, think in terms of the Universe being 14 billion years old, and how humanity got from there to here.

In the beginning, there wasn't even hydrogen.


(All elements heavier than helium were created during a fusion process in a star. We are all made of star dust.)

[Diogenes]

Don't forget that at base nature, man is a beast.

Man is a SAPIENT being. This takes him beyond the "law of the beast" (which is perfectly moral for beasts) to the law of voluntary action. PLEASE try to keep up!

Please let go of your false boundaries.

[Diogenes]

Why would you presume to designate "sapience" as the defining criteria? I know adults with less sapience than a zygote. I argue with them all the time.

Seems you may be confusing "sapience" with "sentience". Totally different things. And both are different than intellegence, which may be your confusion instead.

I smiled when I wrote that. It was a joke, of course. Now I get to smile again because to the exclusion of all the serious points I touched, this was the only one you felt worth commenting on.

[Diogenes]

holy shit Diogenes... ever heard of multi-quote or editing your posts and adding quotes and such????

you made 14 posts in a row... this must be a new world wide record. In most forums, you would be brigged for spam/flooding.

Personally, I prefer to keep posts single topic. Just the way I feel!

Water is wet. Makes for a boring topic. Topics worth discussing have more complex components.

[Diogenes]

You could start by using words the same way the rest of us do. That would aid communication. Another would be not to consider us all stupid.

Like thinking "criminal" does not mean "breaking the law." And calling positions of disagreement "simple and obvious stuff."

Actually, loath as I am to defend him, Diogenes DOES define "crime" as "break the law". It is I who realizes that this is a recent perversion of the language by lawyers.

When was the last time you heard someone distinguish between "crime" and "vice"? They are both illegal (against the law), but a vice is NOT a crime. Think about it. Crime is when you involve someone in an action involuntarily (act immorally to another). Vice is when you do something that may be bad for YOURSELF (act unethically to yourself). Failure to distinguish those simple concepts is the lawyer's bread and butter!

You are presuming that one person's vice is another person's vice, when in fact it is another person's crime.

Take the British woman in Dubai who got so angry when chastised by a local for wearing a skimpy outfit, that she stripped it off, and walked down the mall wearing a bikini.

She's been arrested and now we shall whether her "vice" is a "crime" or not. From their perspective, it's certainly immoral, AND a crime.

[Diogenes]

Don't forget that at base nature, man is a beast.

I see someone thinks very lowly of humans and thus himself.

Sometimes I have more respect for the beasts. They do as seems right to them, and lack the ability to see any other way. Mankind is intelligent enough to do unnatural evil, like kill his own children in the womb.

A beast wouldn't do such a thing, unless perhaps it is sick, and there's a lesson in that.

[Diogenes]

When was the last time you heard someone distinguish between "crime" and "vice"? They are both illegal (against the law), but a vice is NOT a crime. Think about it. Crime is when you involve someone in an action involuntarily (act immorally to another). Vice is when you do something that may be bad for YOURSELF (act unethically to yourself). Failure to distinguish those simple concepts is the lawyer's bread and butter!

Technically, prostitution is a vice even in Nevada. Vice has nothing to do with the law... drinking, cigarette smoking, prostitution, and so forth are all vices. Salvia abuse, for instance, is a vice but not a crime.

Crime means, in all situations, breaking the law. They range from petty offenses through felonies.

There are also civil laws, where breaking them is technically called an offense or infarction, which are theoretically a tort against the adhesion contracts of society (such things as OSHA infarctions and such).

All this is common usage. None of it requires any special description. And if you think something that is a criminal activity is not a crime because it is ALSO a vice, you are confused.

He is arguing philosophically. He distinguishes vice from crime as the difference between someone harming themselves, and someone harming another. He isn't arguing from a "Legal" Perspective, which sees things entirely differently.

I have been trying to demonstrate that the boundary he think exists between one and many is a perception boundary that doesn't really exist, and that one person's "vice" can have significant and horrible consequences for others.

[Diogenes]

When was the last time you heard someone distinguish between "crime" and "vice"? They are both illegal (against the law), but a vice is NOT a crime. Think about it. Crime is when you involve someone in an action involuntarily (act immorally to another). Vice is when you do something that may be bad for YOURSELF (act unethically to yourself). Failure to distinguish those simple concepts is the lawyer's bread and butter!

Technically, prostitution is a vice even in Nevada. Vice has nothing to do with the law... drinking, cigarette smoking, prostitution, and so forth are all vices. Salvia abuse, for instance, is a vice but not a crime.

Crime means, in all situations, breaking the law. They range from petty offenses through felonies.

This is where you and I part ways. As you say "vice has nothing to do with the law" I reply "crime has nothing to do with the law", though lawyers would have you believe it is.

Vice is an ethical infraction. Crime is a moral infraction. Understand that I define moral infraction as doing something WRONG, i.e., immoral, i.e. criminal. Breaking the law is doing something illegal. They truly are seperate concepts though lawyers would have you confuse them. Your fuzzy thinking is their best friend!

"Illegal" and "criminal" only are able to approach synonymity when you have a fully informed jury that is ready, willing, and able to toss out bad law, saying "this is no crime" and provide a court of justice rather than its perversion, a court of law.

You may detect that I have low regard for law and lawyers!

ON that we may agree.

[Diogenes]

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but just saying--reading the ethics rants by folks who have never had a single, undergrad ethics class, is like reading a grade schooler tell Post Doc Physicists how physics ought to work.

Dopey past all understanding.

Why is it everyone thinks they're a philosopher? I've never understood.

Dude, this is teh interwebz. We all are philosophers, lawyers, physicists, rocket scientists and climatologists here.

And sometimes we find a sage.

[Diogenes]

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but just saying--reading the ethics rants by folks who have never had a single, undergrad ethics class, is like reading a grade schooler tell Post Doc Physicists how physics ought to work.

Dopey past all understanding.

Why is it everyone thinks they're a philosopher? I've never understood.

You Kant always Goethe what you want,
But if you try sometimes, you get what you Nietzsche.

I revise my assessment of you upwards.

[IntLibber]

You could start by using words the same way the rest of us do. That would aid communication. Another would be not to consider us all stupid.

Like thinking "criminal" does not mean "breaking the law." And calling positions of disagreement "simple and obvious stuff."

Actually, loath as I am to defend him, Diogenes DOES define "crime" as "break the law". It is I who realizes that this is a recent perversion of the language by lawyers.

When was the last time you heard someone distinguish between "crime" and "vice"? They are both illegal (against the law), but a vice is NOT a crime. Think about it. Crime is when you involve someone in an action involuntarily (act immorally to another). Vice is when you do something that may be bad for YOURSELF (act unethically to yourself). Failure to distinguish those simple concepts is the lawyer's bread and butter!

You are presuming that one person's vice is another person's vice, when in fact it is another person's crime.

Take the British woman in Dubai who got so angry when chastised by a local for wearing a skimpy outfit, that she stripped it off, and walked down the mall wearing a bikini.

She's been arrested and now we shall whether her "vice" is a "crime" or not. From their perspective, it's certainly immoral, AND a crime.

Using sharia law and its barbarities to buttress your arguments doesn't win you any arguments.

[Diogenes]

I see someone thinks very lowly of humans and thus himself.

That could explain it!

Actually, I think I got the cause and effect backwards, but it comes down to the same end result.

Anyway, it seems to me that Diogenes does not trust himself with the effects of drugs (not at all unreasonable) and thus does not trust anybody else with same (quite unreasonable, though there are indeed others that can not be trusted).

Oh, please save your strawman for scaring crows, it won't work on me.

I have seen the effects of drugs on the lives and bodies of numerous people. I know Many people who have died from the effects of drugs, both directly and indirectly. The stuff is evil, and will destroy the people it comes into contact with. Sure, some may resist it's effects, but the laws are to protect the weak, not the strong. They are made for EVERYBODY, not just the special people.

I have little experience with drugs (direct or indirect), but I know that there are those that can be trusted with alcohol and those that cannot. An obvious example is your quiet drunks (I tend to fall into this group, and my brothers seem to) and your violent drunks (I've seen plenty of both sorts), though not all quiet drunks can be trusted (for other reasons, eg neglect, etc).

Drugs are worse than alcohol. (except perhaps Marijuana, which is probably safer.)




I've seen a dozen people who looked like this.

[Diogenes]

Actually, loath as I am to defend him, Diogenes DOES define "crime" as "break the law". It is I who realizes that this is a recent perversion of the language by lawyers.

When was the last time you heard someone distinguish between "crime" and "vice"? They are both illegal (against the law), but a vice is NOT a crime. Think about it. Crime is when you involve someone in an action involuntarily (act immorally to another). Vice is when you do something that may be bad for YOURSELF (act unethically to yourself). Failure to distinguish those simple concepts is the lawyer's bread and butter!

You are presuming that one person's vice is another person's vice, when in fact it is another person's crime.

Take the British woman in Dubai who got so angry when chastised by a local for wearing a skimpy outfit, that she stripped it off, and walked down the mall wearing a bikini.

She's been arrested and now we shall whether her "vice" is a "crime" or not. From their perspective, it's certainly immoral, AND a crime.

Using sharia law and its barbarities to buttress your arguments doesn't win you any arguments.

Strawman Alert! Strawman Alert!


I am pointing out that people are different, and will often see things differently. I used that recent story as an example. I have no favorable regard for sharia law, but I am not going to pretend it doesn't exist.


George Will wrote a column a long time ago where he mentioned the Salem Witch trials. He said people nowadays regarded the whole episode as a sordid example of primitive stupidity, but he pointed out that the people of the time were not stupid. They just believed things that weren't true.

He said that if you believe in witches, and that they are sent here by Satan to curse people and destroy their lives and spirit, then killing them is a perfectly sensible thing to do.


The point is, if people have misconceptions about what might constitute "Harm" to others, then they are a poor judge of what might be a "vice."

Accusing someone of being a witch is no mere lie. (a vice) It could have gotten them killed. (a crime)

Does THIS different cultural example suit you better?

[IntLibber]

Drugs are worse than alcohol. (except perhaps Marijuana, which is probably safer.)




I've seen a dozen people who looked like this.

Yeah, lessee some drunks...

[KitemanSA]

No, it's not "wrong" because I don't like it. I don't like it because it's wrong.

It is objectively wrong.

Obviously not or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What is obvious to someone standing on a cliff may not be obvious to someone in a cave. You have to acquire a better perspective.

Do you mean you think your cave provides a better perspective? Interesting.