jfrost wrote:
Limewater, I realize that you like these discussions but sometimes it seems that you're being purposefully thick.
No, I'm not really being purposefully thick. It's a legitimate question. You made a statement, but have not yet revealed the basis for your statement.
I disagree. But let's leave it at that.
In any case, what I meant is that in the scenario you proposed, it would be true that you stabbed me. It wouldn't be necessarily true that it would be the morally right thing to do.
Yes. Why would it not be morally right? What about the definition of "wrong" you gave allows you to proclaim whether it was morally right or wrong to stab you?
I'm not here arguing morality at all. I'm just saying that it doesn't follow from what you did that you did something right.
It certainly appears to have not been wrong, at least from the definition you gave.
The definition of wrong that I gave is that which is not right or true.
But why do you say that if something is not in conformity with fact or truth then there will necessarily be a sensible, rational argument against it? How do you reach this conclusion? Again, you're essentially restating what FlamePanther did, just by inserting some new definition of "wrong" in there.
Alright. Let me ask you something, though, if something is wrong and there's no good argument against it, how do you know it's really wrong?
That's a very good and very important question. I could just as easily ask the same thing of something that does have a good argument against it. How would you know it was wrong in that case? After all, you said previously that something that is not wrong can have a reasonable argument against it.
What you asked is a very good question, but I think you should generalize it a bit further.
Fine, but you didn't answer. How do you know something is wrong if it doesn't have any good argument against it?
Inazuma wrote:
I'll say it again. Come up with any situation where harm is being done and I will think it's bad. You keep trying to put words in my mouth.
I already posted this once, but if you ask a lot of folks who have their IP pirated, many would tell you that they feel harmed by it.
Really now? -_- OK, here we go...
Why do people get upset when their IP is pirated? Because they don't like losing money. If the piracy actually caused them to lose money, then it is bad. If the piracy did not cause them to lose money, then there is no harm done. Get it?
I never said that piracy is never bad. If it prevents the creators from getting money they normally would have, it is bad.
No, I'm not really being purposefully thick. It's a legitimate question. You made a statement, but have not yet revealed the basis for your statement.
I disagree. But let's leave it at that.
But that's really the whole point of why I questioned FlamePanther's statement originally. If this question cannot be answered, that fact is very significant.
It certainly appears to have not been wrong, at least from the definition you gave.
The definition of wrong that I gave is that which is not right or true.
No, the definition you gave was, "Something is wrong when it is not in conformity with fact or truth." You're changing definitions here. But even this new definition is not very helpful. On what basis do you say that stabbing you with a rusty knife is "not right?" What makes something "right?"
Fine, but you didn't answer. How do you know something is wrong if it doesn't have any good argument against it?
You're right. I didn't answer. I'm not answering because I am not claiming to know that something is wrong.
Besides, you already stated that having a good argument against something is not sufficient to declare it to be wrong.
Why do people get upset when their IP is pirated? Because they don't like losing money. If the piracy actually caused them to lose money, then it is bad. If the piracy did not cause them to lose money, then there is no harm done. Get it?
They feel that they have been harmed. Is that feeling of violation not in and of itself a harm? Does it matter if you actually deprived them of money if they believe that you have and suffer the hurt of being robbed? Is mental and emotional abuse not morally wrong?
Say you're taking a nap and I come in and take a piss on you. Urine is sterile. No harm done, right? Say I start calling your grandmother every afternoon and threatening to burn her house down. I'm not really going to commit arson. No harm done, right?
Say I'm sitting alone by a pool and a toddler wanders in, falls in the water, and begins to drown. I can continue to sip my coke and read Harry Potter. I'm not harming anyone.
I'm a light-weight. Say I down a six-pack of beer and decide to go for a drive. I ride around and manage to not hit anyone. No harm, no foul, right?
Fine, but you didn't answer. How do you know something is wrong if it doesn't have any good argument against it?
You're right. I didn't answer. I'm not answering because I am not claiming to know that something is wrong.
Besides, you already stated that having a good argument against something is not sufficient to declare it to be wrong.
Yes, I did say that. But the point that I was making is that something which is wrong necessarily has a good argument against it.
In all honesty, it seems really absurd to deny this. If I'm wrong in my definition of wrongness, how do you know that? You know it because you your arguments are good or... is there another option?
(By the way, what I actually said was that something right can have a reasonable argument against it - that the argument is reasonable doesn't mean it is valid. If it were valid, the thing in question would be false, or wrong.)
jfrost wrote:
Yes, I did say that. But the point that I was making is that something which is wrong necessarily has a good argument against it.
Yes, but you have not really given any justification at all for this position.
In all honesty, it seems really absurd to deny this.
On what basis?
If I'm wrong in my definition of wrongness, how do you know that?
I don't know that you're wrong in your definition of wrongness. I want you to tell me why it's right. I've questioned you about it, but thus far you've changed definitions on me and haven't really explained why anything is wrong. You claim to understand these things. Help me out.
(By the way, what I actually said was that something right can have a reasonable argument against it - that the argument is reasonable doesn't mean it is valid. If it were valid, the thing in question would be false, or wrong.)
What is the distinction here between "reasonable" and "valid." Why would a reasonable argument not be valid?
Gaming accomplishments: Nibbler (marathon): 251,169,160 / Nibbler (one life): 5,263,360 (WR) Donkey Kong: 423,100 [L12-1] (150th place as of 2019-01-15) Super Smash Bros. (N64): Ranked top 5 in Wisconsin from Q1 2016 to Q2 2017 Shrek SuperSlam: won largest tournament in game's history (Shrekfest 2018)
Why do people get upset when their IP is pirated? Because they don't like losing money. If the piracy actually caused them to lose money, then it is bad. If the piracy did not cause them to lose money, then there is no harm done. Get it?
They feel that they have been harmed. Is that feeling of violation not in and of itself a harm? Does it matter if you actually deprived them of money if they believe that you have and suffer the hurt of being robbed? Is mental and emotional abuse not morally wrong?
Say you're taking a nap and I come in and take a piss on you. Urine is sterile. No harm done, right? Say I start calling your grandmother every afternoon and threatening to burn her house down. I'm not really going to commit arson. No harm done, right?
Say I'm sitting alone by a pool and a toddler wanders in, falls in the water, and begins to drown. I can continue to sip my coke and read Harry Potter. I'm not harming anyone.
I'm a light-weight. Say I down a six-pack of beer and decide to go for a drive. I ride around and manage to not hit anyone. No harm, no foul, right?
OK, I've had enough. I can't tell if you are just joking around and trying to fuck with me for fun, or if you are actually serious about this shit. Either way, I am done wasting my time with this absurd conversation.
Inazuma - "Doing harm to others is bad. Not doing harm is OK"
Limewater - "So what about if you do harm to others? You saying that's not bad?"
Inazuma - "Didn't you hear me? I said harm is bad."
Limewater - "So what about if you do harm to others? You saying that's not bad?"
Inazuma's head explodes.
