Why is this illegal?

#153
#153
PKT_VOL said:
True, if you assume the accepting party has the best intentions of the child at heart. Come on, as a philosopher (as opposed to the rest of the posters on VN) I would expect you to make no assumptions when articulating your argument.
Click to expand...

All philosophy requires assumptions. Assumptions are at the heart of any philosophy.

Thrasher865 said:
you would not consider the child a victim in most cases?

:eek:hmy:
Click to expand...

Victim of what? How has the child been harmed? Not may be abused later, but how has the transaction harmed the child? Abuse is a crime in and of itself. It seems to me that getting a child away from caretakers that are willing to sell it is the opposite of victimization.
 
#155
#155
RespectTradition said:
All philosophy requires assumptions. Assumptions are at the heart of any philosophy.
Click to expand...

Not unfounded assumptions. He made an unfounded assumption. All philosophical arguments are based on sound logical premises which are quite different than unfounded assumptions.
 
#156
#156
Rasputin_Vol said:
That is a UTGibbs-esque quote right there. Wow...
Click to expand...

Actually, he was spot on. Everything is relative. Only a fool would attempt to champion absoluteness. Unfortunately, we have a lot of fools in our "kindergarten" society (as he put it).
 
#157
#157
Thrasher865 said:
I think nearly always in the eyes of abusive parents, it is deserved punishment....

So you are, indeed, saying that child abuse in the form of beatings, etc, is just as severe as being forced into prostitution?

This is either the troll of the century, or you just started an idiotic thread, realized the level of your ignorance, and have too much pride to back down.
Click to expand...

tri_vol said:
Well done good sir. You have surpassed billy c.
Click to expand...

YorkVol said:
No act is morally wrong until you examine the intentions.

A few years ago the State Department investigated international adoptions coming out of Viet Nam. They found that several orphanages were actively taking babies from their mothers and then offering them up for adoption and making a profit from the deal. Mothers lost their children, adoptive parents gained children under false pretenses. Once the idea of profit came in, the intentions skewed radically to the detriment of most of the people involved.

My problem with selling children stems from this basic premise that once there is a profit to be made then there is too much room for corruption of the intentions.

Transferring parental rights for a variety of reasons, even if that is to improve the economic condition of the birth parents is okay in my mind. No one should profit from the transfer, neither the birth parents, adoptive parents, adoption agencies or governments.
Click to expand...

You guys and trut are literally talking past one another. You guys are on two different wavelengths neither party seems to realize it. Such is the difference between idealism and realism.

Thrasher, York, and tri are articulating their arguments within a realistic paradigm. Trut is articulating his argument within an idealistic paradigm.

Technically, all parties are correct within their own paradigm. However, you keep using your own point of reference to engage the other side without playing by the other party's paradigm rules. Thrasher, York, and tri, if you want to make progress with trut, your going to have to articulate an idealistic argument. Vice versa with trut.

If you don't understand, let me break it down using an example brought up in the thread. The hypothetical situation: if I engage in violence towards my neighbor, should I be punished the same for punching him as shooting him?

Idealism (trut): Absolutely. All that truly matters is the intent by the person committing the act. In both cases, the perpetrator is inflicting violence (if you really want to break it down; pain) unto another individual in an unjustified manner (non-self defense). The amount or degree of violence preceieved by outsiders is irrelevant. The intent being to inflict pain upon another individual in an unjustified manner is the EXACT same in both cases. That's the only thing that matters; intent. Many realists might say the act of retrieving the gun is what makes the difference in intent. However, in an idealist world, you have to view the gun and a fist as mere tools available to the perpetrator to inflict pain upon his neighbor. In a idealistic world, we would be able to tap into the human mind and punish the true intent of the perpetrator. Within this paradigm, trut is correct in his assertion that both acts are equally immoral and should be punished accordingly. In a very anti-utilitarian way, the end result or amount/degree of pain is irrelevant. Only the moral intent of the perpetrator matters; which is the same for both scenarios.

Realism (Thrasher, York, and tri): Both of the scenarios are far from being morally equivalent. First, there is a substantial difference between the degree of pain inflicted upon the neighbor by the perpetrator. A fairly utilitarian perspective. Second, the tool used to inflict the pain upon the neighbor is absolutely an indicator of the true intent of the perpetrator. If the neighbor is unarmed, and their is no obstacle preventing the perpetrator from directly engaging the neighbor, then the tool chosen by the perpetrator is a great indicator of intent. (If there is a house, fence, car, etc. creating an obstacle preventing the perpetrator from engaging the neighbor, the tool might not sufficiently indicate the intent of the neighbor.) Thus if the perpetrator picks up a gun, knife, or hammer it can be reasonably inferred that he want to inflict a great deal of pain or possibly kill the neighbor. Unlike idealism, it is impossible to very truly know the intent of the perpetrator. A third party can only infer the perpetrator's intent based on his actions. Therefore, a utilitarian view of the end result of pain inflicted in conjunction with a reasonable expectation of never truly knowing the intent of perpetrator lead a realist to believe that two scenarios are indeed not morally equivalent.

Hope this post helps.
 
#159
#159
OrangeEmpire said:
wow, what a freak
Click to expand...

haters-teadmill.gif
 
#162
#162
PKT_VOL said:
Actually, he was spot on. Everything is relative. Only a fool would attempt to champion absoluteness. Unfortunately, we have a lot of fools in our "kindergarten" society (as he put it).
Click to expand...

Truth is not relative. Truth is absolute. Only a fool would claim to possess any absolute truth, thought.
 
#163
#163
therealUT said:
Truth is not relative. Truth is absolute. Only a fool would claim to possess any absolute truth, thought.
Click to expand...

Agreed, depending on your definition. If one is to define truth as synonymous with uniform reality, then I would disagree.
 
#164
#164
PKT_VOL said:
Agreed, depending on your definition. If one is to define truth as synonymous with uniform reality, then I would disagree.
Click to expand...

The only two philosophers whom I have seen make such an attempt are G.E. Moore and J.L.Austin.
 
#165
#165
therealUT said:
The only two philosophers whom I have seen make such an attempt are G.E. Moore and J.L.Austin.
Click to expand...

There are many non-philosophers among us (society) which infer that notion on a daily basis. Although, Moore's hand argument is quite entertaining.
 
#166
#166
PKT_VOL said:
There are many non-philosophers among us (society) which infer that notion on a daily basis. Although, Moore's hand argument is quite entertaining.
Click to expand...

It would be hard for me to live if I did not believe my perceptions; however, to infer that my perceptions provide me some intuition of truth and the composition of the external world is an inference I will not make.

If some make that inference, I find it interesting. If some never broach the subject, I find that less interesting and more likely.

Wittgenstein does a decent job relegating Moore's level of knowledge to a much lower rung on the belief, surmise, speculation ladder.
 
#167
#167
PKT_VOL said:
Thrasher, York, and tri, if you want to make progress with trut, your going to have to articulate an idealistic argument. Vice versa with trut.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol:

This makes sense. You and trut are "philosophers." I get it, you live in a fantasy world with your thoughts.

The reason this is dumb, is because it's pointless. Why reason about an idealist world, when the world we live in is anything but ideal? It's just dumb. Think practical, or continue being wanna be philosophers. "Philosophers" are about as helpful to society as astrologists, but you do a good job of trying to talk above our heads and achieve some self-perceived higher level of intellect.

BTW, you're*
 
#169
#169
Thrasher865 said:
:eek:lol:

This makes sense. You and trut are "philosophers." I get it, you live in a fantasy world with your thoughts.

The reason this is dumb, is because it's pointless. Why reason about an idealist world, when the world we live in is anything but ideal? It's just dumb. Think practical, or continue being wanna be philosophers. "Philosophers" are about as helpful to society as astrologists, but you do a good job of trying to talk above our heads and achieve some self-perceived higher level of intellect.

BTW, you're*
Click to expand...

Aside from the entire enlightenment, the establishment of republican/democratic forms of government, the establishment of Cartesian coordinates, the establishment of the Scientific Method, etc., I think you have a valid point.
 
#170
#170
Thrasher865 said:
:eek:lol:

This makes sense. You and trut are "philosophers." I get it, you live in a fantasy world with your thoughts.

The reason this is dumb, is because it's pointless. Why reason about an idealist world, when the world we live in is anything but ideal? It's just dumb. Think practical, or continue being wanna be philosophers. "Philosophers" are about as helpful to society as astrologists, but you do a good job of trying to talk above our heads and achieve some self-perceived higher level of intellect.

BTW, you're*
Click to expand...

Thanks Thrasher! I realized after my second attempt to answer the question that TrUT didn't actually want to debate the original issue but just wanted to continue to debate philosophy. I'm good with that on a Saturday night (off season of course) with a glass of Scotch and a quiet house. On a week day when my wife and I have gotten 4 kids up and to school on time reality has a way of getting my attention.

Hmmm, now that I think of it, this really would be better in a Philosophy Forum rather than the Politics Forum. . . Mods?
 
#171
#171
therealUT said:
It would be hard for me to live if I did not believe my perceptions; however, to infer that my perceptions provide me some intuition of truth and the composition of the external world is an inference I will not make.
Click to expand...

Your walking a tight line with that one. If you mean an inference about some absolute truth or ultimate uniform reality (external world), then I agree. If not, you can't possibly believe your perceptions and simultaneously believe they do not give you some sort of truth about the external world.

therealUT said:
If some make that inference, I find it interesting. If some never broach the subject, I find that less interesting and more likely.
Click to expand...

I think the former is due to a lack by the person to think about it critically or to think of the whole topic as abstract and ultimately pointless. I've met a couple people who feel this way. Very similar to the topic of causation versus constant conjunction. The subtle difference is not enough to grasp their interest. They end up taking the who gives a damn approach. "Move one with your life." Can't say they aren't justified in their beliefs.

I will say, those who get consumed in the perception dilemma sometimes end up going insane. Trying to figure out what is our ultimate reality gets very interesting. The more you dive into the subject the more disturbing the conclusions and questions get.
 
#172
#172
Thrasher865 said:
:eek:lol:

This makes sense. You and trut are "philosophers." I get it, you live in a fantasy world with your thoughts.

The reason this is dumb, is because it's pointless. Why reason about an idealist world, when the world we live in is anything but ideal? It's just dumb. Think practical, or continue being wanna be philosophers. "Philosophers" are about as helpful to society as astrologists, but you do a good job of trying to talk above our heads and achieve some self-perceived higher level of intellect.

BTW, you're*
Click to expand...

I like to be able to articulate an argument and play devil's advocate within both realms. As I stated earlier in this thread, I am a realist and utilitarian at heart. Therefore, I actually sided with you, York, and Tri. I just got tired of seeing 50+ posts of people talking past on another. My point was to say that if you want gain ground on trut in this thread you have to essentially play by his rules or agree to disagree. None of you seemed to get what he was doing. Thought I would try to bridge the gap between y'all. Both sides had valid points. :hi:
 
#173
#173
YorkVol said:
Thanks Thrasher! I realized after my second attempt to answer the question that TrUT didn't actually want to debate the original issue but just wanted to continue to debate philosophy. I'm good with that on a Saturday night (off season of course) with a glass of Scotch and a quiet house. On a week day when my wife and I have gotten 4 kids up and to school on time reality has a way of getting my attention.

Hmmm, now that I think of it, this really would be better in a Philosophy Forum rather than the Politics Forum. . . Mods?
Click to expand...

Nice. I tend to prefer a porch, good cigar, and plenty of cold George Killian's Irish Red. To each their own.

I've tried to subtly hint at adding a Philosophy Forum also. I think it would be a great addition to VN.
 
#174
#174
I can't stand philosophy until I'm inebriated in some form or fashion. As an engineer, my brain works in the practical world 99.9% of the time.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top