Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 18:38:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1151 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, David Eaton writes:
> > Problem #1 - It teaches violent solutions as acceptable solutions (perhaps
> > even encouraged?) to moral dilemmas.
>
> Of course. Sometimew it is *unavoidable* Please provide an acceptable
> solution to stopping the moral dilemma of the Nazi tyranny in WWII without
> violence.
Ah-- I agree in principle. That it IS sometimes unavoidable. But making it
more commonplace gives it the appearance of not so much of an last-resort,
and more of a general solution.
> > Problem #2 - It further solidifies a distinction between good and evil which
> > doesn't exist in Real Life(tm).
>
> Disagree. I think good and evil can be distinguished IRL. Sometimes it's
> harder than other times, I'll admit.
Disagree. :)
See: evil [below]
> > Recent example: I was appauled when GB Jr. said in one of his speeches that
> > moral relativism was bad,
>
> It is:-)
>
> > and that the only acceptable moral valuation of
> > bin Laden was that he is evil. I don't think one needs to recognize him as
> > evil in order to justify stopping him.
>
> Semantics? What would be your definition of "evil"?
Evil (ee-vil): 1) [DaveE's dictionary] - that which goes against one's own
sense of morality. (see: Relative morality)
Prior to seeing & hearing about the videotape (which was the time at which
GWB Jr. was speaking) I was under the impression that bin Laden was actually
still capable of being a good person. However, the comments about his own
people not knowing they were commiting suicide pushed the limit. I think
he's most likely evil. Of course by my relativistic theory, I'm not SURE of
it, but it's my guess.
Better example: Bobo the koala gets ahold of a beretta. Bobo plays with it,
and shoots his pal in the head. Is Bobo evil? No. Should he be stopped from
having the gun? Yes. Is violence necessary? Maybe.
> I didn't bother to watch.
You didn't miss much... (But are you more innocent for lack of it? :)
> Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
> experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost
> certainly impossible.
I dunno if I agree with that. It would require a definition of healthy, and
I'm not sure it breaks my current assumption of the definition.
> Anyone who would rob a child of the chance to develop
> normally into a mature, healthy adult... yeah, I'd call them (or their acts)
> evil.
I guess we'll just have to disagree until you accept moral relativity, you
evil man :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
