Renegade Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Likewise, for a will to be a political power to keep society unchanged, a lot of individuals have to recognize themselves by exchanging the reasons at the basis of their different subjective views. Why exactly do they have to exchange their reasons? Why is it not sufficient to simply express their preference without giving their reasons? Is there any society on earth where you can point to where common will is determined in such a manner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Maybe we should just add this to the growing number of topics you babble endlessly and ignorantly about.Yes? yes... Don't feed the troll!!! (Even though I plead guilty now and then). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Yah enough - a few days a week we eat - the rest of the month we go hungry and struggle for food - fuck off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) Why exactly do they have to exchange their reasons? Why is it not sufficient to simply express their preference without giving their reasons? Because as soon as one expresses something to you (his preference here), he also owes you the reasons why he thought it was worthwhile to take some of your time/attention to do so. Edited June 1, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Because as soon as one expresses something to you (his preference here), he also owes you the reasons why he thought it was worthwhile to take some of your time/attention to do so. That may be true in the debating club but it most certainly isn't true of political systems. A vote is cast in private and a voter owes you nothing about why he has made such a choice. BTW, you did not address, which country on earth adopts the system you espouse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 That may be true in the debating club but it most certainly isn't true of political systems. A vote is cast in private and a voter owes you nothing about why he has made such a choice. It is a duty for anyone who initiates or wants to maintain an interpersonal relation and our political system, where we hide our choice, is the product of many such relations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 It is a duty for anyone who initiates or wants to maintain an interpersonal relation and our political system, where we hide our choice, is the product of many such relations. Could you rephrase that in standard comprehensible english... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Could you rephrase that in standard comprehensible english... Where is the question mark after English (with a capital e also please)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Where is the question mark after English (with a capital e also please)? It wasn't a question, it was a request, although I don't think your addled brain is up to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Could you rephrase that in standard comprehensible english... Also, it is not standard comprehensible English to abuse of suspension points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 It is a duty for anyone who initiates or wants to maintain an interpersonal relation and our political system, where we hide our choice, is the product of many such relations. Who defines what is a duty? You? Virtually every system which is recognized as a democracy allows its citizens to vote anonomously and without having to justify their choice. So I ask again: Is there a country on earth which adopts the system you advocate? Can you read it now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 It wasn't a question, it was a request, although I don't think your addled brain is up to it. Please forgive Benoit. English is not his first, (and possibly not his second) language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Also, it is not standard comprehensible English to abuse of suspension points. Listen, if attempting to communicate is too hard, why not just fuck off and annoy someone else somewhere else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Who defines what is a duty? Moral philosophers like Thomas Scanlon: http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/Thomas-...0674950895.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Moral philosophers like Thomas Scanlon:http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/Thomas-...0674950895.html Why the hell would anyone consider what a philosopher says anything but an OPINION? They and you may have an opinion on what we "must" or "must not" do but no one is under any obligation to subscribe to their opinions. Charles Manson was a philosopher of sorts, and believed his followers should kill. Does that justifiy the killing? Each person should be guided by their own moral code or the rules of society. Opinioins are a dime a dozen. Pridictabily, you opted to ignore a question which you did not like the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Why the hell would anyone consider what a philosopher says anything but an OPINION? Because they can defend their thesis more than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Because they can defend their thesis more than others. So what? That one defends their opinion vigorously doesn't mean their opinion is the "right" one. You seem to use philosophers thoughts as a crutch when you are devoid of any substance you can defend yourself. Let's get to the real world. Have you racked your brains yet and found a place which implements the system you advocate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) So what? That one defends their opinion vigorously doesn't mean their opinion is the "right" one. Philosophers defend their opinions rationally. Edited June 2, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Philosophers defend their opinions rationally. Philosophers make claims and try and justify their claims. There are all kinds of philosophers sometimes with opposite claims all defending their opinions rationally. The philosopher you quote has a theory on how to determine what is "right" from "wrong". There are many other theories, many equally if not more valid. You fail to show why one philsophy should be adopted to the exclusion of others. Even if we accept one mechanism of defining morality, you still would need to show why morality should be imposed collectively upon society instead of individually adopted voluntarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Philosophers make claims and try and justify their claims. There are all kinds of philosophers sometimes with opposite claims all defending their opinions rationally. The philosopher you quote has a theory on how to determine what is "right" from "wrong". There are many other theories, many equally if not more valid. You fail to show why one philsophy should be adopted to the exclusion of others. Like scientific theories, we retain the one that best resists its criticisms. Edited June 2, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Like scientific theories, we retain the one that best resists its criticisms. So which one have you retained as you seem to quote bits and pieces from a multitude of philosophers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 So which one have you retained as you seem to quote bits and pieces from a multitude of philosophers? Again, we obviously retain the one that best resists his criticisms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Again, we obviously retain the one that best resists his criticisms. You obviously have a comprehension problem. Which specfic ONE have YOU retained? Edited June 2, 2009 by Renegade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 It wasn't a question, it was a request, although I don't think your addled brain is up to it. It isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 BTW, you did not address, which country on earth adopts the system you espouse? The farther a country is from deliberative democracy (say North Korea), the hungrier its population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.