Yay for Texas!!!

[mawilson 2,133]

It is based on logic - the logic that derives from the driving premise, that all humans are born equal and free. Killing off weaker, sicker, older members demands that these people have been downgraded from having an equal right to existence to having no right to existence. There is no logical step that takes one from one thing to another.

Your premise says that all humans are *born* equal and free, it doesn't say that they have to remain

equal and free for the rest of their lives.

[HAL 9000 96]

You mean, you can't find the bias in the basic premise? Or you can see it, but refuse to 'enlighten' us all?

I guess what he's saying is, where did this "basic premise" come from? Is it a product of

Western civilization? Is it universally accepted as something to strive for?

If there's a culture somewhere based on a different premise, who's to say that your system

is better than theirs?

How can an unbiased premise be a product of a civilization? That's a bit like saying Newton's laws of motion are a product of an English education. If it's biased, show where the bias lies. My contention is that there is no inherent bias in the idea that all people are born equal and free. It does not depend on any notion of culture or external decision making as to whether one is or is not included. If you can give me another premise to work with, again, worth the debate but if not what's the point of circling around again?

There seems to be lots of confusion as to how ethical positions can be influenced by external factors. They can't.

Our understanding of a premise is where bias is introduced- not in the premise itself.

I understand what you're saying. Maybe you can spell things out in simpler sentences for those that haven't taken a decent ethics course (and remembered the meaning of ethical precepts).

[HAL 9000 96]

That's a bit like saying Newton's laws of motion are a product of an English education.

Ethics are the fundamental values that underlie all of these things.

Of course if you think that logic is a mutable concept that can be relativised, as I believe you have said elsewhere,my making this distinction isn't likely to make a difference.

But ethics is not based in logic. It would be "logical" to kill off the weaker, sicker, older,

members of society, but it wouldn't be "ethical."

It's not based in science either - science is about cold, hard facts and figures, whereas

ethics is about people's "feelings".

True. Ethical precept demands a line is drawn.

Logic is prone to construction by its practitioners. That's why we have clowns here in OT baiting 'to get a rise' and purposefully misinforming as if they were the standard bearers of truth and logic when they themselves become the target of a long list of laughter by people that can read and separate fact from bias.

You mean, you can't find the bias in the basic premise? Or you can see it, but refuse to 'enlighten' us all?

I guess what he's saying is, where did this "basic premise" come from? Is it a product of

Western civilization? Is it universally accepted as something to strive for?

If there's a culture somewhere based on a different premise, who's to say that your system

is better than theirs?

How can an unbiased premise be a product of a civilization? That's a bit like saying Newton's laws of motion are a product of an English education. If it's biased, show where the bias lies. My contention is that there is no inherent bias in the idea that all people are born equal and free. It does not depend on any notion of culture or external decision making as to whether one is or is not included. If you can give me another premise to work with, again, worth the debate but if not what's the point of circling around again?

Quit with the endless philosophy you embrace so firmly and start talking "meat and Potatoes".

Is taking my neighbors Bicycle unethical?

There are some cultures who believe the responsibility is on YOU to secure it..... the thief simply picked, low hanging fruit. YOU are wrong not him.

See MC, here is a prime example as to my previous reply to you.

It is based on logic - the logic that derives from the driving premise, that all humans are born equal and free. Killing off weaker, sicker, older members demands that these people have been downgraded from having an equal right to existence to having no right to existence. There is no logical step that takes one from one thing to another.

Your premise says that all humans are *born* equal and free, it doesn't say that they have to remain

equal and free for the rest of their lives.

That's where society's savage inequalities skew ethics according to prevailing biases and hierarchies.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

We'll take it as long as you keep Crawford, TX

No problem. Dallas is the new Crawford.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Damn keep Dallas too then!

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

sure and just give florida back to spain too.

Well TBO Florida was 'bought' while Texas... hmmmmmm...

was?

[Peikko 1,575]

It is based on logic - the logic that derives from the driving premise, that all humans are born equal and free. Killing off weaker, sicker, older members demands that these people have been downgraded from having an equal right to existence to having no right to existence. There is no logical step that takes one from one thing to another.

Your premise says that all humans are *born* equal and free, it doesn't say that they have to remain

equal and free for the rest of their lives.

Right, that's the primary premise from which other conclusions can logically be drawn. It also a condition that remains constant, the right to life does not diminish with time. Think of it as a fundamental 'law'. Why should the passage of time have an effect on the premise? I can't see a logical reason that would lead one to suppose that it does. Perhaps you can?

Edited July 23, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[HAL 9000 96]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

sure and just give florida back to spain too.

Well TBO Florida was 'bought' while Texas... hmmmmmm...

was?

You're from Texas. Tell us. Wasn't exactly 'bought' fair and square right?

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Texas sucks!

and GOP Texas even more

'nuf said

Edited July 23, 2009 by TävôLuDô

[mawilson 2,133]

Right, that's the primary premise from which other conclusions can logically be drawn. It also a condition that remains constant, the right to life does not diminish with time. Think of it as a fundamental 'law'. Why should the passage of time have an effect on the premise? I can't see a logical reason that would lead one to suppose that it does. Perhaps you can?

Again, your premise only mentioned the rights at birth. If you want to make the right to life constant, you have to change the premise.

[Peikko 1,575]

The point of adding the word 'born' free and equal is not to suggest that the passage of time can and should have an effect on the fundamental premise but to ensure that these rights are present at birth not extended at a later date. I am sure you understand that

If you will, the 'law' of existence would no longer be a law but would become a function of a condition - the passage of time.

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

sure and just give florida back to spain too.

Well TBO Florida was 'bought' while Texas... hmmmmmm...

was?

You're from Texas. Tell us. Wasn't exactly 'bought' fair and square right?

so when are you going to give up any property you own and give it back to the native americans?

[HAL 9000 96]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

sure and just give florida back to spain too.

Well TBO Florida was 'bought' while Texas... hmmmmmm...

was?

You're from Texas. Tell us. Wasn't exactly 'bought' fair and square right?

so when are you going to give up any property you own and give it back to the native americans?

Property I own is on an island invaded and annexed by the same general that played a crucial role in the Indian Wars.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

Let's just give Texas back to Mexico and be done with it.

sure and just give florida back to spain too.

Well TBO Florida was 'bought' while Texas... hmmmmmm...

was?

You're from Texas. Tell us. Wasn't exactly 'bought' fair and square right?

so when are you going to give up any property you own and give it back to the native americans?

Property I own is on an island invaded and annexed by the same general that played a crucial role in the Indian Wars.

so how's them feelings of guilt?