Welcome to Gaia! ::

Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1


They deserve it, based on their actions, what they would continue to do, what they've done etc.

I'd spare their lives if it was in my power, but if not, it is their fault for their death.


Don't go around raping people. xp
It isn't their fault for their deaths. You're a hypocrite, this conversation is over.
Why are you asking questions if all you're going to do is scream "No! No! No! No!" He gave a perfectly legitimate answer. He doesn't value either life more, he simply would prefer if the innocent would live out their life as oppose to two criminals. What's so hard to understand about that?
Because valuing one person over two more is not equality.

He claimed he believes all lives are equal, and has clearly demonstrated he does not. If you value the life of one over the lives of two, under any circumstances, you do not believe all lives are equal.
I don't think you're interpreting it correctly because you already have your mind made up. You're thinking their actions are the same as their lives.

Their lives are equal, but their actions are not. Based on their actions, he would prefer to save the innocent person over two criminals. This does not subtract from the value of life.
Yes, it does. The sum of their lives are, to him, expendable if it could save the life of someone worth more than they are.

Quote:
He had admitted that, given the chance, he would save the criminals as well.
Irrelevant. Its not about whether he'd save them, period, it's about whether or not he would value their two lives over one law abiding citizen, and obviously he does not. He will not retract his statement.

Quote:
Your theoretical situation, however, did not leave room for that.
On purpose. It has three answers. There is only one answer in which "all lives are equal" can be a true statement you believe in.

Quote:
I think your proposed situation operates under the pretense that two lives should be worth twice as much as one life rather than what they are doing with their lives.
Currently, what they're doing with their lives, is about to not be living. That's all that matters in the moment if you believe all lives are equal. If you don't then don't say that.
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
It isn't their fault for their deaths. You're a hypocrite, this conversation is over.
Why are you asking questions if all you're going to do is scream "No! No! No! No!" He gave a perfectly legitimate answer. He doesn't value either life more, he simply would prefer if the innocent would live out their life as oppose to two criminals. What's so hard to understand about that?
Because valuing one person over two more is not equality.

He claimed he believes all lives are equal, and has clearly demonstrated he does not. If you value the life of one over the lives of two, under any circumstances, you do not believe all lives are equal.
I don't think you're interpreting it correctly because you already have your mind made up. You're thinking their actions are the same as their lives.

Their lives are equal, but their actions are not. Based on their actions, he would prefer to save the innocent person over two criminals. This does not subtract from the value of life.
Yes, it does. The sum of their lives are, to him, expendable if it could save the life of someone worth more than they are.

Quote:
He had admitted that, given the chance, he would save the criminals as well.
Irrelevant. Its not about whether he'd save them, period, it's about whether or not he would value their two lives over one law abiding citizen, and obviously he does not. He will not retract his statement.

Quote:
Your theoretical situation, however, did not leave room for that.
On purpose. It has three answers. There is only one answer in which "all lives are equal" can be a true statement you believe in.

Quote:
I think your proposed situation operates under the pretense that two lives should be worth twice as much as one life rather than what they are doing with their lives.
Currently, what they're doing with their lives, is about to not be living. That's all that matters in the moment if you believe all lives are equal. If you don't then don't say that.
I get it, you're just going to keep saying the same thing over and over again and reject any explanation as to why they feel that way in place of your own explanation. There's no changing your mind no matter what the facts actually are. Carry on.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
It isn't their fault for their deaths. You're a hypocrite, this conversation is over.
Why are you asking questions if all you're going to do is scream "No! No! No! No!" He gave a perfectly legitimate answer. He doesn't value either life more, he simply would prefer if the innocent would live out their life as oppose to two criminals. What's so hard to understand about that?
Because valuing one person over two more is not equality.

He claimed he believes all lives are equal, and has clearly demonstrated he does not. If you value the life of one over the lives of two, under any circumstances, you do not believe all lives are equal.
I don't think you're interpreting it correctly because you already have your mind made up. You're thinking their actions are the same as their lives.

Their lives are equal, but their actions are not. Based on their actions, he would prefer to save the innocent person over two criminals. This does not subtract from the value of life.
Yes, it does. The sum of their lives are, to him, expendable if it could save the life of someone worth more than they are.

Quote:
He had admitted that, given the chance, he would save the criminals as well.
Irrelevant. Its not about whether he'd save them, period, it's about whether or not he would value their two lives over one law abiding citizen, and obviously he does not. He will not retract his statement.

Quote:
Your theoretical situation, however, did not leave room for that.
On purpose. It has three answers. There is only one answer in which "all lives are equal" can be a true statement you believe in.

Quote:
I think your proposed situation operates under the pretense that two lives should be worth twice as much as one life rather than what they are doing with their lives.
Currently, what they're doing with their lives, is about to not be living. That's all that matters in the moment if you believe all lives are equal. If you don't then don't say that.


No, that's not what I believe at all.

In your mind, saving a person has to be about their value of life, but the reality of life is often a lot more complex than that.


Perhaps ironically, the lives being of equal worth is why I believe the rapist deserves to die in the first place.

If I believed his their life has less value than there'd be little issue; it wouldn't be his fault for his action, etc.


Life is a little bit more complex than lives being easily numerically comparable.
Suicidesoldier#1
Korean commandos are raised from the age of 2.
Where did you hear that?
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
Why are you asking questions if all you're going to do is scream "No! No! No! No!" He gave a perfectly legitimate answer. He doesn't value either life more, he simply would prefer if the innocent would live out their life as oppose to two criminals. What's so hard to understand about that?
Because valuing one person over two more is not equality.

He claimed he believes all lives are equal, and has clearly demonstrated he does not. If you value the life of one over the lives of two, under any circumstances, you do not believe all lives are equal.
I don't think you're interpreting it correctly because you already have your mind made up. You're thinking their actions are the same as their lives.

Their lives are equal, but their actions are not. Based on their actions, he would prefer to save the innocent person over two criminals. This does not subtract from the value of life.
Yes, it does. The sum of their lives are, to him, expendable if it could save the life of someone worth more than they are.

Quote:
He had admitted that, given the chance, he would save the criminals as well.
Irrelevant. Its not about whether he'd save them, period, it's about whether or not he would value their two lives over one law abiding citizen, and obviously he does not. He will not retract his statement.

Quote:
Your theoretical situation, however, did not leave room for that.
On purpose. It has three answers. There is only one answer in which "all lives are equal" can be a true statement you believe in.

Quote:
I think your proposed situation operates under the pretense that two lives should be worth twice as much as one life rather than what they are doing with their lives.
Currently, what they're doing with their lives, is about to not be living. That's all that matters in the moment if you believe all lives are equal. If you don't then don't say that.
I get it, you're just going to keep saying the same thing over and over again and reject any explanation as to why they feel that way in place of your own explanation. There's no changing your mind no matter what the facts actually are. Carry on.
You two are the ones who keep dodging the ultimatum. Either you believe that all lives are equal, or you don't. If you don't, then don't lie about it. Nothing either of you have said is relevant.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Tranquil Surrogate
Suicidesoldier#1
Korean commandos are raised from the age of 2.
Where did you hear that?


Oh, from a horrible source, I don't really want to look for a source, you can just type in Korean special forces and stuff >.<
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
Because valuing one person over two more is not equality.

He claimed he believes all lives are equal, and has clearly demonstrated he does not. If you value the life of one over the lives of two, under any circumstances, you do not believe all lives are equal.
I don't think you're interpreting it correctly because you already have your mind made up. You're thinking their actions are the same as their lives.

Their lives are equal, but their actions are not. Based on their actions, he would prefer to save the innocent person over two criminals. This does not subtract from the value of life.
Yes, it does. The sum of their lives are, to him, expendable if it could save the life of someone worth more than they are.

Quote:
He had admitted that, given the chance, he would save the criminals as well.
Irrelevant. Its not about whether he'd save them, period, it's about whether or not he would value their two lives over one law abiding citizen, and obviously he does not. He will not retract his statement.

Quote:
Your theoretical situation, however, did not leave room for that.
On purpose. It has three answers. There is only one answer in which "all lives are equal" can be a true statement you believe in.

Quote:
I think your proposed situation operates under the pretense that two lives should be worth twice as much as one life rather than what they are doing with their lives.
Currently, what they're doing with their lives, is about to not be living. That's all that matters in the moment if you believe all lives are equal. If you don't then don't say that.
I get it, you're just going to keep saying the same thing over and over again and reject any explanation as to why they feel that way in place of your own explanation. There's no changing your mind no matter what the facts actually are. Carry on.
You two are the ones who keep dodging the ultimatum. Either you believe that all lives are equal, or you don't. If you don't, then don't lie about it. Nothing either of you have said is relevant.


In your simplistic view of the world, maybe.

But this still doesn't describe how no two people are "good".


In my complex world view I'd try to save everyone, I wouldn't be left with a simple yes or no choice.

So since your insane choice doesn't apply to the real world in the first place trying to use it in a crafted scenario when I'm explaining to you the ultimatum of my morality and you being unable to understand it, is irrelevant.


I am imperfect.

If there is a situation where I can't save everyone I do the best I can; the value of their lives aren't what's considered in saving them.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
I don't think you're interpreting it correctly because you already have your mind made up. You're thinking their actions are the same as their lives.

Their lives are equal, but their actions are not. Based on their actions, he would prefer to save the innocent person over two criminals. This does not subtract from the value of life.
Yes, it does. The sum of their lives are, to him, expendable if it could save the life of someone worth more than they are.

Quote:
He had admitted that, given the chance, he would save the criminals as well.
Irrelevant. Its not about whether he'd save them, period, it's about whether or not he would value their two lives over one law abiding citizen, and obviously he does not. He will not retract his statement.

Quote:
Your theoretical situation, however, did not leave room for that.
On purpose. It has three answers. There is only one answer in which "all lives are equal" can be a true statement you believe in.

Quote:
I think your proposed situation operates under the pretense that two lives should be worth twice as much as one life rather than what they are doing with their lives.
Currently, what they're doing with their lives, is about to not be living. That's all that matters in the moment if you believe all lives are equal. If you don't then don't say that.
I get it, you're just going to keep saying the same thing over and over again and reject any explanation as to why they feel that way in place of your own explanation. There's no changing your mind no matter what the facts actually are. Carry on.
You two are the ones who keep dodging the ultimatum. Either you believe that all lives are equal, or you don't. If you don't, then don't lie about it. Nothing either of you have said is relevant.


In your simplistic view of the world, maybe.

But this still doesn't describe how no two people are "good".


In my complex world view I'd try to save everyone, I wouldn't be left with a simple yes or no choice.

So since your insane choice doesn't apply to the real world in the first place trying to use it in a crafted scenario when I'm explaining to you the ultimatum of my morality and you being unable to understand it, is irrelevant.
If you think the world is too complicated for "all lives are equal," then admit it. Don't sit here and lie saying you believe in one thing, and act against it without being a hypocrite.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
l_Shamrock_l
False Dichotomy
Yes, it does. The sum of their lives are, to him, expendable if it could save the life of someone worth more than they are.

Irrelevant. Its not about whether he'd save them, period, it's about whether or not he would value their two lives over one law abiding citizen, and obviously he does not. He will not retract his statement.

On purpose. It has three answers. There is only one answer in which "all lives are equal" can be a true statement you believe in.

Currently, what they're doing with their lives, is about to not be living. That's all that matters in the moment if you believe all lives are equal. If you don't then don't say that.
I get it, you're just going to keep saying the same thing over and over again and reject any explanation as to why they feel that way in place of your own explanation. There's no changing your mind no matter what the facts actually are. Carry on.
You two are the ones who keep dodging the ultimatum. Either you believe that all lives are equal, or you don't. If you don't, then don't lie about it. Nothing either of you have said is relevant.


In your simplistic view of the world, maybe.

But this still doesn't describe how no two people are "good".


In my complex world view I'd try to save everyone, I wouldn't be left with a simple yes or no choice.

So since your insane choice doesn't apply to the real world in the first place trying to use it in a crafted scenario when I'm explaining to you the ultimatum of my morality and you being unable to understand it, is irrelevant.
If you think the world is too complicated for "all lives are equal," then admit it. Don't sit here and lie saying you believe in one thing, and act against it without being a hypocrite.


I believe all people are equal.

That doesn't mean I'm going to try to save one person over another based on that quality, and that's largely because I'm an imperfect human who, in this situation, apparently can't save everyone.


So I'll do the best I can.

An idealistic view of the world doesn't mean I'm good enough to implement it, per say.


I mean in my hypothetical situation I'd save all of them, with superman powers.

So beat that. xp
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

Screw it, neither of you get it.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
Screw it, neither of you get it.


I do, in fact, get it, I just understand you're not getting it. xp
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

If the Kryptonian's had made that gamble, they would have lost. They do not have the strength of character to destroy an entire planet, to achieve success.

But you, a human? You kill your own kind to win in combat.


An admirable quality.

I shall make no move against you.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

So a good soldier ISN"T a blood thirsty killing machine?

I guess the USMC have it wrong then, what with all that "God has a hard on for Marines because they kill everything they see and keep Heaven packed with fresh souls!" and "What makes the grass grow; BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD"
GunsmithKitten
So a good soldier ISN"T a blood thirsty killing machine?

I guess the USMC have it wrong then, what with all that "God has a hard on for Marines because they kill everything they see and keep Heaven packed with fresh souls!" and "What makes the grass grow; BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD"
This just in: War chants and battle cries to motivate people are now creed.
l_Shamrock_l
GunsmithKitten
So a good soldier ISN"T a blood thirsty killing machine?

I guess the USMC have it wrong then, what with all that "God has a hard on for Marines because they kill everything they see and keep Heaven packed with fresh souls!" and "What makes the grass grow; BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD"
This just in: War chants and battle cries to motivate people are now creed.


creed? you mean the 90s band with the heroin addiction?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games