Stosh

part two, Timmy is ten, his odds of dying are then 95 percent by the time hes 50. Seems good, then do the math for Timmy at 50, well now his life expectancy is up to being 95 percent sure he will die between fifty years and two thousand years old. Woo hoo , the assumptions chosen, that timmy is a non special statistical event, means the Longer he lives the less likely it is he will die. We know this isnt true from statistical analysis of known events with known causes. If he made it to 60 he was way off the bell curve based on his original calculated life span. So Timmys life span should be understood not to conform to a random statistical model. There is causality each of us may end once born at any time, it depends on the particulars of what happens to us. Same is true for humanities expectations. And the guys who want math to predict the future dont understand that math itself isnt real .

People often want to know what they just cannot. Heres an example. A guy wanted to figure how long humanity would last. Making the broad statistical assumption that any non specially picked given duration would fit a bell curve with 95 percent certainty assuming one knows nothing else about the future, then the duration remaining for humanity is between zero and forty times the length of the past. Thats just a function of the random statistical bell curve. Assuming weve covered 100000 years to get to now, we could be 95 percent sure we will die out in the next four million years. Woohoo he he has a number!

Youre asking him to confirm your absoulte on himself existing , before you will entertain his point. Like I said, youre being closed to his idea,, and if you are interested in getting to solid ground,, you should be open to what that is. Its doubt.

Correct, beneath all the proofs there is a chance that its all a house of cards,, you may be the nightmare of a butterfly. Yes, as well, there is no monster. Your certainty however is a sentiment , and thats all, no matter how tightly you wrap your arms around it. Frankly ,I dont see why you need it anymore, it is a requirement you are placing upon your own understanding, and so I imagine you could lift that requirement. It strikes me odd, that what is called faith, is maintained by a sense of disbelief about facts,, and faithlessness? has the requirement of proofs which require a sort of faith in facts. To safely ensconce a belief in things ,so that no additional external conclusive proof is required ,is securing against an upset. One need not perhaps wonder about ones place in the scheme of things ,nor doubt ones conscience, nor have fear of rejection etc. The price of requiring proof is the possibility that proof will falter. The price of faith is that one may reject best evidence.... no surprise in any of that Id say.

Karl, it should be obvious Im not evading , there are answers which you are prepared to accept, and those that you are discarding immediately. Im stuck using the grammar I was given. Thinking I have free will would not prove I had it. The puppeteer would also not be determinable to be existant ,unless you said he was literally everything, and even then you couldnt prove everything had will because the universe does not appear to be chaotic... and you cant witness all of it anyway! Ethics likewise has to be seen in a context of imagination, approximation, unprovable supposition. Employing the same imaginary constructs , we could discuss ethics of men, the attitudes of Ahab, evolution and the stars.. but there always will be the fundemental uncertainty, which appears to disturb you... the avoidance of which pushes you to constructs which dont line up with whatever it is that does exist.

I dont actually know why I chose a over b, or that I actually did any choosing, for that matter. If You wish to discuss correct and incorrect , thats cool, but my presentations would not be the same since I dont consider moral rightness as being practical or functional correctness.

Yes, we assign names to things we believe exist, according to properties we deem them to have. But the jack of diamonds , from a deck of cards is deteriorating all the time , watch it a thousand years and that should be clear. Recognize that its perceived existance is a presentation of a continuous progression ,a morphing state rather than a constant. All the evidence that we have of the card we think we see, is also morphing. Taken to the extreme, we can intellectually understand that the card is a transient thing which cannot be truly quantified in any parameter. Accommodating this intellectual insight ,one may state Something transiently exists but we cant accurately say what it is. So We are being approximate verbally and mentally about the cards traits and existance ,so we can play the hand we are dealt , with an imaginary grouping of transient objects according to arbitrary rules for conceptual currency. But can be quite certain that Something exists since we all agree on who won the hand.

Nice twist Karl, but the thing is ,correct and incorrect ,is not what we are discussing. We are talking about moral right and wrong. It's not an error on my part to use the words in this fashion. You re conflating the Meanings of words which arent identical meanings. I didnt say there was no absolutes either, that too is another subject. You still have grappling to do. ... But it really is a cute move there to try and get out of the ring. You can wave a white flag whenever you want.

It has nothing to do with error. There just is just no such existant thing as being right. It is a judgement. And no there is no way I can possibly be wrong , divergent compass or not... since there is no such thing that Is wrongness, that too is judgement. No slavery cant be fine,since theres no such thing as being fine, its a subjective judgement. The roll of dice doesnt need to happen for one to be unhappy with being enslaved, thats a personal view, which I allow exists. As does the prospect that one can consider such treatment cruel. We may come to that conclusion through empathy... but that wasnt true for , , Dahlmer.

That should be a t shirt slogan.

It is true I do consider it that there can be no knowing of right and wrong AS facts and such judgement can never be considered correct. That does not preclude you from having your own compass , and deciding for yourself what you feel is right and wrong for you,, nor does it preclude me from judging you as being , contrary to my own assessment of right and wrong. Institutional slavery is a MORAL act since the doers felt it was right. From an amoral position , (abandoning societal judgement of rightness ), I feel it was a horrific thing. While revenge as a tool of societal relations does indeed have some problems , its use is widespread and common. (The idea being that retroactively one prevents crime against onesself by threat of retaliation ) The employ of a societal moral code also has some very significant problems. For instance , if its legal to kill, rob , take lands of , native peoples as a basic RULE somewhere, ,, like in Tasmania, no personal offense is required as a causative agent., I can just go ahead and do the deed because in that society its considered 'right'.Even In existing situations countries ,There can be rules which allow one to rape, beat , kill women with impunity or highly incommensurately for some imagined offense. At least with revenge there is a causative event ,, and if that doesnt exist ,then the act is not considered revenge , but rather an act of aggression which I am not endorsing , and believe the faith in rightness in fact often does , like jihad and genocide. The difference is similar to comparing 'personal grievances' -to wars where thousands are caught up in trying to kill people they don't even know , for reasons they don't get , (and perhaps could have successfully negotiated with, had over to dinner, shared schools with. etc. ) I'm just describing how it is, that these violent relations are due to MORAL stances , ideas about who is right and wrong. Its the same dynamics that sent Christians on the Crusades , or King David to establish his power. Without the idea that one is socially considered 'right', one stands alone as the doer of a deed , and bears alone , the brunt of repercussions related to it. I think Few Germans on their own , would've created an Auschwitz.

You're misunderstanding me , I'm saying that there is a morality spectrum,I guess you're seeing it as an opposite pairing. But anyway If you consider the exercise of moral judgement to be justice , then the slavery was just. ( to you ) Even If you do consider the slavery evil, the same people were still acting out of a sense of their own morality. The argument boils down to , it is factually right because I think its right, no matter whether its cruel or dehumanizing or destructive. amoral -- lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. as opposed to moral which IS concerned with that. Revenge I would say is not concerned with societal endorsement of rightness therefore its amoral and therefore is related to the relations between individuals, rather than be a blanket license considered to be endorsed by all of society or a god - to exterminate an race or force compliance with arbitrary rules.

Fine, but being in accord with that, I don't see what you think makes such justice, trump the retribution of revenge. Ex , in this country , there was the time when slavery was considered , legal , just , and morally vindicated. Same for the extermination of 'native' americans. Frankly I dont consider such acts as ones of revenge. So the code of revenge wouldnt satisfy as justification for those acts , whereas the other codes did.

That's not much of an endorsement of Sharia law either. Im thinking the perps would call it justice.

Well yeah, they are different.. but I certainly wouldn't say that in every case that the legal system provides justice , parity , resolution,, beyond what normal human interactions around revenge may achieve. Ex Lets say you tick someone off below the threshold of the legal system , well if you can afford to and want it fixed, you might let them get their pound of flesh back , maybe with some interest , and be able to clean the slate so there isnt residual resentment.

Why are you drawing revenge as a disproportionate act ? The goal of it is also usually parity , thats why they call it 'getting even' . Actually this kind of law isn't really a rational judgement... being that it is a preexisting paradigm which is force fit, to apply to real world events. Laws can be equally unjust.

I think my intentions are good. .. If thats any comfort.

"acceptance not tolerance there is a reason there are two separate words " The connotation for tolerance is that one doesn't emotionally condone the thing , but lets it be anyway .. for acceptance, the connotation is that one emotionally is resolving of the conflict and lets the situation continue. Externally viewed the two appear similar and so quite reasonably they are considered synonyms. So If I tolerate bad behavior , that may come to an end ,, if I accept it, then I am considering it as unavoidable , or OK. Similarly, one -(may) -tolerates cloudy weather in the present, and may accept it long term.

Don't worry , the word doesn't imply the sentiment is at hand. And , like you said , the thread is rather peaceful after all. (but Someone has to play the devils advocate or the court is rigged for the jury to come to a directed decision. Personally I dont think it appropriate for me to declare someones sentiments as 'universally' wrong , sometimes sentiments are justified by logic , and sometimes they are validated just by virtue of being genuine. I do think Mh is correct that hate really is bred in conditions of long term un-resolvable conflict. And its that aspect which I think important to note. but its not a rationally- arrived- at state , so one cant really expect to have it fit within rational boundaries , and indeed I think any of us should be able to at least understand why other people may end up 'doing' it., whether we personally approve of the .. application in a particular instance, or not . Its easy to have compassion for the weak soft gentle tame and innocent , and its not so easy having it for the rough angry wild and aware person. Just perhaps, the greater good is done if one can extend compassion That much farther. .. and here, my statement serves as opportunity to spread a message against a clear backdrop)

It seems pretty popular, wouldnt that suggest it has a ,happy- often overlooked- up-side? That its , natural ,empowering, and something we all, normally, have in common? ,,,like music .

Good, I hate when people are intolerant. ( passed the 24 hr point)

"Nearly", .... and so then one could assume that the distinction being drawn is the subtle difference between the two words , as they are sometimes considered . I would say theres actually a very significant difference between acceptance and tolerance which might not be attributed much importance, but in this case that subtlety is actually the main point of the statement ,I would think. I could spell the difference out , if you like.

Speaking of long threads, where is Karl?

Not in particular. At the time I was keying on dustys last lines.