Edward Snowden Discussion Thread

[Frisivisia]

MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE LEGALIZE MURDER 2013

More like "let's base our legal decisions on the law rather than on what one person on the internet finds ethical."

Well duh, but it's fun to mock people who go off on the "lol morality is subjective" wagon and use it to justify whatever the fuck they want.

[Des-Bal]

Well duh, but it's fun to mock people who go off on the "lol morality is subjective" wagon and use it to justify whatever the fuck they want.

You're on the wrong side of this argument. I'm saying that because morality is subjective we should not be using it to justify whatever the fuck we want.

[Nore Empire]

The ethics and morals of the Human race as a whole, which are becoming non-existent. People don't want to know things so they vote death to a young man who WAS doing the right thing by releasing information about these projects...if they were used against other nations, do you know what the US could become? If they were used in a bad manner[like to murder people] or if the world finally went insane and established death penalties on homosexuals, would you let that happen? If I told you there was a 1% chance you would die because they made these programs, would you want them to continue?

Your ethics are not my ethics. Your morals are not my morals. There are plenty of people out there who think it's entirely ethical to execute homosexuals.

And I'm not even entertaining that asinine little tangent. What if I told you there was a 99% chance that you would die because they didn't disband all world governments and declare me supreme god king of all I survey?

At least we are not barbaric and uncivilized. What could you possibly do to the world? At least by statement wouldn't be false and would be a fact.

[The Godly Nations]

My code of ethics says murder is okay LEGALIZE MURDER 2013.

I'm not sure you understand how mocking works, that mentality is the exact thing I'm condemning.

If you don't believe in a universal moral code, then you cannot condemn because there is no standard of 'good' or 'bad' from which you may condemn it.

[Frisivisia]

Well duh, but it's fun to mock people who go off on the "lol morality is subjective" wagon and use it to justify whatever the fuck they want.

You're on the wrong side of this argument. I'm saying that because morality is subjective we should not be using it to justify whatever the fuck we want.

I enjoyed mocking you anyway.

[The Godly Nations]

Well duh, but it's fun to mock people who go off on the "lol morality is subjective" wagon and use it to justify whatever the fuck they want.

You're on the wrong side of this argument. I'm saying that because morality is subjective we should not be using it to justify whatever the fuck we want.

Only morality isn't subjective- that is only your claim.

[Nore Empire]

MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE LEGALIZE MURDER 2013

More like "let's base our legal decisions on the law rather than on what one person on the internet finds ethical."

How about well over 75? Hm? Forget my math and statistics that make that impossible, the votes don't lie...though they actually do because of my math, but it goes over to the death/punishment/it was wrong votes as well. Either way, more people voted it was alright.

[Des-Bal]

Only morality isn't subjective- that is only your claim.

It's the claim of a lot of people. What constitutes moral differs based on your cultural, religious, and individual background. If there is no agreement on what constitutes moral then who decides who is right? We are ultimately following one persons idea of morality.

I also feel like this is as good a time as any to point out I'm not a relativist.

[The Godly Nations]

MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE LEGALIZE MURDER 2013

More like "let's base our legal decisions on the law rather than on what one person on the internet finds ethical."

Or, let's decide if this is good or bad based upon some higher principles than laws, simply because laws like this can, in fact, be unjust.

[Des-Bal]

How about well over 75? Hm? Forget my math and statistics that make that impossible, the votes don't lie...though they actually do because of my math, but it goes over to the death/punishment/it was wrong votes as well. Either way, more people voted it was alright.

1. First of all basing our decisions on what less than a hundred people on the internet say is equally ridiculous.
2. I find it incredibly unlikely those people hold the same views on every issue they have different sets of ethics.

[Des-Bal]

Or, let's decide if this is good or bad based upon some higher principles than laws, simply because laws like this can, in fact, be unjust.

That's a good reason to change the law not to levy punishments in spite of it.

[The Godly Nations]

Only morality isn't subjective- that is only your claim.

It's the claim of a lot of people. What constitutes moral differs based on your cultural, religious, and individual background. If there is no agreement on what constitutes moral then who decides who is right? We are ultimately following one persons idea of morality.

I also feel like this is as good a time as any to point out I'm not a relativist.

Not an argument at all. You are simply stating. I can claim that some people's moral may be wrong, and that there is a universal set of principles that their beliefs go against. Thus, a man who believes that it is our duty to kill all queers is wrong, and he is wrong not because the greater portion of society thinks he's wrong, but because there exist an universal set of ethics which such beliefs violate. And I would have the majority of Philosophers behind me in this respect. That various ethical position exist does not prove your point, and you are merely repeating it, neither does the fact that other people agree.

[Des-Bal]

Not an argument at all. You are simply stating. I can claim that some people's moral may be wrong, and that there is a universal set of principles that their beliefs go against. Thus, a man who believes that it is our duty to kill all queers is wrong, and he is wrong not because the greater portion of society thinks he's wrong, but because there exist an universal set of ethics which such beliefs violate. That various ethical position exist does not prove your point, and you are merely repeating it.

The problem is that we didn't pop out of the womb with a copy of the universal code of ethics. There are infinite different ethical theories you can claim that yours is right but your claim holds no more weight than anyone else's.

[Frisivisia]

Not an argument at all. You are simply stating. I can claim that some people's moral may be wrong, and that there is a universal set of principles that their beliefs go against. Thus, a man who believes that it is our duty to kill all queers is wrong, and he is wrong not because the greater portion of society thinks he's wrong, but because there exist an universal set of ethics which such beliefs violate. That various ethical position exist does not prove your point, and you are merely repeating it.

The problem is that we didn't pop out of the womb with a copy of the universal code of ethics. There are infinite different ethical theories you can claim that yours is right but your claim holds no more weight than anyone else's.

You mean we didn't all come out of the womb with a copy? Well, don't I feel special.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Was anyone else just absolutely floored to learn that "Snowden" is in fact not just a random name Joseph Heller made up out of thin air for Catch-22?

[The Godly Nations]

The problem is that we didn't pop out of the womb with a copy of the universal code of ethics. There are infinite different ethical theories you can claim that yours is right but your claim holds no more weight than anyone else's.

We don't pop out of the womb with knowledge of the fact that the Earth is round either, it doesn't make that any less of a fact. Your argument is simply an opinion as well, and, while I can justify mine own position on the belief that there is, in fact, a universal set of morals, it detracts from the point- metaethics can be better discussed elsewhere- which is that you are merely claiming the morals are relative to society, upbringing, etc.- a priori- as if it were a given truth, and then accuse others of basing their opinion on a different set of ethical beliefs.

[Gauthier]

The problem is that we didn't pop out of the womb with a copy of the universal code of ethics. There are infinite different ethical theories you can claim that yours is right but your claim holds no more weight than anyone else's.

You mean we didn't all come out of the womb with a copy? Well, don't I feel special.

No, it's DLC.

[Frisivisia]

Was anyone else just absolutely floored to learn that "Snowden" is in fact not just a random name Joseph Heller made up out of thin air for Catch-22?

I thought it sounded like a rather clever name for someone trapped inside a building by snow.

[Frisivisia]

You mean we didn't all come out of the womb with a copy? Well, don't I feel special.

No, it's DLC.

Oh, I forgot that I bought the GOTY Edition.

[The Godly Nations]

Or, let's decide if this is good or bad based upon some higher principles than laws, simply because laws like this can, in fact, be unjust.

That's a good reason to change the law not to levy punishments in spite of it.

No, before we levy punishment because of an unjust law, we should examine whether it is, in fact, unjust before that fellow's punish.

[Des-Bal]

We don't pop out of the womb with knowledge of the fact that the Earth is round either, it doesn't make that any less of a fact. Your argument is simply an opinion as well, and, while I can justify mine own position on the belief that there is, in fact, a universal set of morals, it detracts from the point- metaethics can be better discussed elsewhere- which is that you are merely claiming the morals are relative to society, upbringing, etc.- a priori- as if it were a given truth, and then accuse others of basing their opinion on a different set of ethical beliefs.

I'm claiming people have different ideas about what is and is not ethical so regardless of all of this bullshit the fact you're arguing with me is evidence enough that people do not agree on what is and is not ethical. Making decisions based on criteria that varies from person to person is just not possible.

[Frisivisia]

We don't pop out of the womb with knowledge of the fact that the Earth is round either, it doesn't make that any less of a fact. Your argument is simply an opinion as well, and, while I can justify mine own position on the belief that there is, in fact, a universal set of morals, it detracts from the point- metaethics can be better discussed elsewhere- which is that you are merely claiming the morals are relative to society, upbringing, etc.- a priori- as if it were a given truth, and then accuse others of basing their opinion on a different set of ethical beliefs.

I'm claiming people have different ideas about what is and is not ethical so regardless of all of this bullshit the fact you're arguing with me is evidence enough that people do not agree on what is and is not ethical. Making decisions based on criteria that varies from person to person is just not possible.

Exactly. For instance, whether or not murder is wrong varies from person to person, and we can therefore make no decisions based on whether or not murder is wrong.

[Gauthier]

Was anyone else just absolutely floored to learn that "Snowden" is in fact not just a random name Joseph Heller made up out of thin air for Catch-22?

I thought it sounded like a rather clever name for someone trapped inside a building by snow.

That would be "Charlie Sheen" or "Gary Busey".

[Frisivisia]

I thought it sounded like a rather clever name for someone trapped inside a building by snow.

That would be "Charlie Sheen" or "Gary Busey".

Charlie Sheen would use his tiger blood and Adonis DNA to escape.

[The Godly Nations]

I'm claiming people have different ideas about what is and is not ethical so regardless of all of this bullshit the fact you're arguing with me is evidence enough that people do not agree on what is and is not ethical. Making decisions based on criteria that varies from person to person is just not possible.

No, some people may be wrong that this isn't legal or that isn't legal, just as some people may be wrong that this isn't ethical and that isn't ethical.