[Non-political] News that makes you Laugh/Cry/Both...

[Kaelik]

Well, actually my question wasn't about logic--Tussock already shit all over using logic to arrive at truth on the way to his swipe at Aristotle. I want to see an empirical demonstration of what counts as good and what counts as evil. This is of course a fool's project, but shhhhhh, don't tell him the answer to the puzzle, it'll ruin it for him.

Science != logic. And logic doesn't work the way you think it works (while we're at that: Aristotle knew dick about logic). And you don't know what "empirical demonstration" means.

Hey dumbshit, if you are going to criticize someone, make sure you aren't completely wrong when you are doing so.

1) Redshirt isn't saying that science = logic. He was telling someone that he was talking about Science not logic, something you could only possibly say if you believed that Science != logic.

2) Yes, he really does know what empirical demonstration means. Yes he is using the verb see metaphorically. Get over yourself. The point he is making is obvious even if you could interpret the sentence to mean something else if you want.

[Redshirt]

Science != logic.

...Right. Did you mean to say this to someone else, or are you just really bad at reading comprehension, or what?

And logic doesn't work the way you think it works

I'm really curious; how do I think logic works?

[Ancient History]

Back on the torture thing, the problem is that it works. If you torture someone for long enough without killing them, they will talk. The problem is, they will say anything to make it stop. They will make shit up. They will lie. They will try to give you whatever they think you want to know. They will believe what they are telling you fervently. So while, yes, you can get people to talk under torture, you have absolutely no guarantee that anything they say is accurate or just a desperate concoction of their brain to try and relieve the pain and stress.

[DSMatticus]

Tussock, stop being a stupid twat. People are not making fun of you because "science doesn't lead to anything ever!" People are making fun of you because you are shouting "science!" and have no fucking clue how actual research and investigation is done.

Evidence. Really. Data, and lots of it. Not with debates at all. When you defend your Thesis, or publish in a journal, you don't stand there arguing against it while someone else argues for it. Someone's going to check your evidence, make sure that it means what you think it means, but you really do just make your own point and show you have the evidence to back it.

Protip: do you know how people frequently prove that the data they have is evidence of a relationship? They claim that it isn't evidence of a relationship, and then prove themselves wrong. Then they release it into the wild, and see if anyone can poke holes in their proof. Then, if no one manages to poke those holes, people start to accept it as evidence of a relationship. Welcome to day one undergrad statistics. You're just babbling words that sound SCIENCY while having no idea how those concepts are actually used. You are embarrassing the shit out of yourself.

It is playing devil's advocate until you figure out why the devil is an asshole and why you shouldn't listen to him. It's exactly the thing Maj described and you rejected. That is why you are a buttface stupidhead, and that is why people are calling you a buttface stupidhead. You rejected the methodology that all modern scientific research is based off in favor of... SCIENCE! What next? Will you reject communicating with words in favor of language?

None of that has anything to do with debates. At all. Thank you for explaining the joke though.

Seriously, what the fuck do you think peer review is? How do you think the scientific community reaches a consensus on anything? No, they don't meet in rooms and have moderated highschool style debates, but a bunch of people throw shit back and forth in journals and conferences for awhile until one idea wins by virtue of last man standing. Scientists do, in fact, argue with eachother. Sometimes, members of the scientific community are even forced to argue with people whose conclusions they accept but whose methodology is flawed. The horror! Don't they know that down that road lies baby torturing?

[Kaelik]

Back on the torture thing, the problem is that it works. If you torture someone for long enough without killing them, they will talk. The problem is, they will say anything to make it stop. They will make shit up. They will lie. They will try to give you whatever they think you want to know. They will believe what they are telling you fervently. So while, yes, you can get people to talk under torture, you have absolutely no guarantee that anything they say is accurate or just a desperate concoction of their brain to try and relieve the pain and stress.

I think most people on TGD are well aware that torture is an ineffective means of gathering information. But the question is, does that have any bearing on the claim that torturing people is "wrong." Where in this context, it clearly means morally wrong. Like if you wanted to punish someone because you are vengeful asshole (like our judicial system), you could torture them, and I think very few people would claim torture was an ineffective punishment. But the claim is that being a vengeful asshole is somehow morally wrong and wanting to hurt people like that is not morally right, and... to get there you have to introduce some non Science axioms somewhere, whether those are "I think the world should be structure to make me personally happy. (Or only people with the Divine Mandate of being related to me, or of having a lot of money, or of being white, or Jesus.)" Or "I think the world should be structured to make the majority of people in it happy." Or "I think we should an invent a complex structure of measuring the various costs of people's happiness weighted against the decreased happiness of other because they are happy and then maximize the total happiness of all the people in the world. (Or all the dolphins because fuck humans)." Or "Let's just make up some non nonsensical rules about how you have to treat everyone the same, and damn the consequences."

But all of those are non Science Axioms. And therefore, Tussock must reject each and every one of them and all their variations.

[Ancient History]

There have been dissertations written about torture, so I don't think we're going to get to the root of it here. The short version goes something like this:

1) Hurting other people is wrong.
2) Wrong actions can be justified.
3) If something doesn't work, it is not justified.
4) Hurting other people doesn't work.

Some people might argue with #2, some people might argue with #4, but that's the gist of it. The thing is that as punishment, there is no indication that torture works better as a deterrent to prevent crime from happening, or to prevent relapse. If torture doesn't stop people from committing crime, and doesn't prevent people from committing crimes again, then there's no good justification for it.

[Chamomile]

The actual argument here is about point #1, and specifically about how you can't use pure logic to arrive at it. Without morals, there is no way of determining that one end state is better than another, and thus no reason to take any action at all.

[Kaelik]

There have been dissertations written about torture, so I don't think we're going to get to the root of it here. The short version goes something like this:

1) Hurting other people is wrong.

Can you read? I feel like you should read my post at all before responding to it. You missed step fucking one, which is accepting and/or making up a completely arbitrary non scientific classification of what your goals are.

I don't need a fucking logical argument that starts after that step and derives any end conclusion, because you can derive anything you want after picking the arbitrary goals that allow you to derive that thing. Watch:

1) Me not having everything I want is wrong. (See how fucking useless your initial premise is?)
2) I want to brutally torture people.
Therefore: torturing people is right.

4) Hurting other people doesn't work.

Some people might argue with #2, some people might argue with #4, but that's the gist of it. The thing is that as punishment, there is no indication that torture works better as a deterrent to prevent crime from happening, or to prevent relapse. If torture doesn't stop people from committing crime, and doesn't prevent people from committing crimes again, then there's no good justification for it.

No dumb shit. Hurting people hurts them. The point of punishment is not rehabilitation, it is punishment. It is vengeance and hurting people as "just deserts" for them hurting others with no hope or plan for rehabilitation.

And it was the dominant justification for punishing criminals for 8000 years or longer. And it is the actual reason the US still locks people in shitty prisons with other criminals and denies them jobs when they get out even though that provably also doesn't rehabilitate people. And if specific deterrence was our only reason for locking people up, everyone would receive life sentences.

Punishment is meant to punish people, not rehabilitate them, and torture provably does in fact punish people and succeed at punishing them. Your objection to the concept of punishment as a viable goal is a totally non Science goal that you made up in your head.

[Ancient History]

Peace, Kaelik. I said at the beginning that people have spent a lot of time and effort on this subject and we're not going to resolve it here. This is all another pointless fucking argument I can't believe you're having.

I agree that all moral systems are inherently arbitrary, because the universe isn't set to Humanist principles. I also recognize that most of them are based on some fairly fundamental understandings. You get down to the bottom of a lot of religious and political systems, the main take-home message is do no harm, because they consider it wrong. However, because that doesn't fucking work you get the second bit: reciprocity. And yes, I agree with you that it's a shitty way to be doing things.

So yeah, I used "Hurting people is wrong" as an axiom. I don't pretend it's scientifically derived, that's just how you logically argue things. It's just the starting point, an assertion that is generally considered true.

[Kaelik]

Peace, Kaelik. I said at the beginning that people have spent a lot of time and effort on this subject and we're not going to resolve it here. This is all another pointless fucking argument I can't believe you're having.

And this would be a peace offering why? Why the fuck would you being a condescending fuck who is simultaneously advocating that it is all inherently unknowable man be in any way a fucking peace offering that you think would cause me to be nice to you while you are proving over and over that you don't put in the basic effort to read and understand what other people are actually saying?

I agree that all moral systems are inherently arbitrary, because the universe isn't set to Humanist principles.

Then why the fuck are you posting a trite shitty argument that I obviously know and that doesn't even remotely address my actual point at me?

I don't pretend it's scientifically derived

Which is the only fucking relevant thing you have yet said to the point of people bringing up torture, which is that it requires unscientific fucking premises that tussock, according to tussock, must reject.

[Ancient History]

And this would be a peace offering why? Why the fuck would you being a condescending fuck who is simultaneously advocating that it is all inherently unknowable man be in any way a fucking peace offering that you think would cause me to be nice to you while you are proving over and over that you don't put in the basic effort to read and understand what other people are actually saying?

It's not a peace offering. It is a plea for peace, because so far you have only been trying to foment conflict.

Then why the fuck are you posting a trite shitty argument that I obviously know and that doesn't even remotely address my actual point at me?

Because the argument you're trying to have is pointless. Literally, there is no point to having this argument, but you persist in it.

Which is the only fucking relevant thing you have yet said to the point of people bringing up torture, which is that it requires unscientific fucking premises that tussock, according to tussock, must reject.

Are you seriously bitching because we have yet to quantify the millinazi as a unit of evil, or because you can't get Tussock to agree with you that morality is unscientific (but not necessarily illogical)? Either way, you're predestined to dissappointment, so the question is: why the fuck are you still arguing about it?

[Kaelik]

It's not a peace offering. It is a plea for peace, because so far you have only been trying to foment conflict.

Because the argument you're trying to have is pointless. Literally, there is no point to having this argument, but you persist in it.

Are you seriously bitching because we have yet to quantify the millinazi as a unit of evil, or because you can't get Tussock to agree with you that morality is unscientific (but not necessarily illogical)? Either way, you're predestined to dissappointment, so the question is: why the fuck are you still arguing about it?

THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU START!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ancient History]

Honestly, I was hoping we'd cut through another three days of argument and you'd get so frustrated or bored you'd leave it off.

[Redshirt]

Anyway, the important thing is that Tussock is still wrong.

[DSMatticus]

Because the argument you're trying to have is pointless. Literally, there is no point to having this argument, but you persist in it.

Well, no. It's not pointless. Tussock believes in SSSOOOUUULLLSSS particles known as goodrons and badrons that are floating around us being judgmental. That's dumb (whether he words it more flatteringly than I do or not), and it should be called dumb.

that morality is unscientific (but not necessarily illogical)

I would say morality is necessarily alogical. As in, it necessarily begins with arbitrary assertions that are neither logical nor illogical and in fact completely outside the domain of logic. That's important to understand, because failing to understand that leads to the belief in goodrons and badrons.

THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU START!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, to be fair, the start is very clearly a deliberate change in topic. As in, he just fucking says, "back on the torture thing..." and then goes on a related tangent that doesn't interface with anything tussock has said and also doesn't claim to. That's pretty legit.

[erik]

[Ancient History]

I would say morality is necessarily alogical. As in, it necessarily begins with arbitrary assertions that are neither logical nor illogical and in fact completely outside the domain of logic. That's important to understand, because failing to understand that leads to the belief in goodrons and badrons.

Eh. There's a whole body of work on moral reasoning. The thing about a train of logical thought is that you have to start with a group of assertions and then follow it through; the assertions themselves do not have to be true, but they should be self-evident or at least unable to be readily disproved. Legal reasoning for example doesn't content itself with whether or not a given law is just or fair, but only on the conditions of that law.

[Kaelik]

Legal reasoning for example doesn't content itself with whether or not a given law is just or fair,

Except when it does.

[Ancient History]

Different beast. If you question the validity of a law, that's the equivalent of attacking an axiom. It's a fair approach, but you go from arguing the chain of logic to attacking the what the chain of logic is based on. Which you can totally do, and is totally done in any kind of logic. Show that one of the axioms doesn't hold and the rest of the reasoning, however pretty, is worthless. It's a great conceit often used in Sherlockian media.

[Kaelik]

Different beast. If you question the validity of a law, that's the equivalent of attacking an axiom.

Are you a lawyer? No, then shut up. I am talking about equity.

[Starmaker]

1) Me not having everything I want is wrong. (See how fucking useless your initial premise is?)
2) I want to brutally torture people.
Therefore: torturing people is right.

1. You aren't going to have everything you want, fullstop.
Therefore, you have to make compromises and establish priorities.

2. Generally, people don't like torture. They don't like them being tortured, they don't like the idea of their loved ones being consensually tortured, and they don't like the idea of someone torturing them and then proving it was totes consensual.
Therefore, people have (mostly) agreed to ban torture.

3. As such, torture as a personal hobby is a very inefficient way of having fun. If you want to brutally torture people, you should really consider other options.

[Foxwarrior]

1. You aren't going to have everything you want, fullstop.
Therefore, you have to make compromises and establish priorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

[Kaelik]

1) Me not having everything I want is wrong. (See how fucking useless your initial premise is?)
2) I want to brutally torture people.
Therefore: torturing people is right.

1. You aren't going to have everything you want, fullstop.
Therefore, you have to make compromises and establish priorities.

2. Generally, people don't like torture. They don't like them being tortured, they don't like the idea of their loved ones being consensually tortured, and they don't like the idea of someone torturing them and then proving it was totes consensual.
Therefore, people have (mostly) agreed to ban torture.

3. As such, torture as a personal hobby is a very inefficient way of having fun. If you want to brutally torture people, you should really consider other options.

It is a moral argument. Living in Nazi Germany doesn't make Jew killing okay under most moral systems, and living in a place with banned torture and not being able to regularly torture people does not make not getting to torture people still wrong under this moral system.

[DSMatticus]

I do not really think anyone is fucking arguing anything with anyone anymore. Nobody agrees with tussock that goodrons and badrons exist and torture is bad because someone measured the number of badrons it produced and found them to be above acceptable levels FUCK YEAH SCIENCE. Nobody actually thinks torture is a thing people should be allowed to do in the pursuit of information or entertainment. Nor is believing torture is a thing people should be allowed to do in the pursuit of information or entertainment necessary to yell at tussock for arguing that ethical systems can have empirically, objectively demonstrated value (which is begging the question) as opposed to empirically, objectively demonstrated results (which is actual scientific research).

Kaelik is just fucking right here. Tussock rose quite voluntarily to the task of defending the notion of objectively verifiable statements of ethical value, even going so far as to borrow and repurpose the "atheists are amoral heathens without the light of god, ergo bad things like child torture!!1!" card. Tussock is wrong and playing that card is completely disingenuous asshattery. That is the scope of the discussion on torture.

[Ancient History]

Different beast. If you question the validity of a law, that's the equivalent of attacking an axiom.

Are you a lawyer? No, then shut up. I am talking about equity.

Are you a lawyer? Because it seriously doesn't look like you're talking about equity.