Pacifism?

[Elioenai26]

Quoting with proper context - yes.
Quoting without proper context - no.
Paraphrasing or interpreting - no.
I have seen what happened when you paraphrased Eudaimonist´s statement recently.
Thanks for asking for permission beforehand.

Thank you. Happy Holidays to you and yours!

 

[Davian]

It is probably best if we call done done. I have no idea why my question caused you such problems, but I apologize. It was, in my opinion, a question and no more.

I look forward to perhaps discussing other matters with you in a different thread at a future date. Have a great holiday season.

You said, "They now have a theory. I have some too."

Do you count yourself among the ranks of Watson and Crick (DNA), Einstein (physics), and Shockley, Bardeen, and Brattain (the transistor effect, on which the computer you are using is based)?

 

[Davian]

No I do not have to have scientific papers regarding free will to know that I have the capacity to make choices and decisions in my everyday life.

So on that do you base this assertion?

I am 100% responsible or culpable for the choices I make in my life, whether good or bad. Its called being a man and taking responsibility for my actions.

Do you also apply this to women? children? Those born with Rhys or Down syndrom? What about those that suffer from brain trauma, disease, tumors? What about Phineas Gage?

 

[Max S Cherry]

You said, "They now have a theory. I have some too."

Do you count yourself among the ranks of Watson and Crick (DNA), Einstein (physics), and Shockley, Bardeen, and Brattain (the transistor effect, on which the computer you are using is based)?

In what manner are you asking if I count myself among their ranks? Am I famous? No. Have I contributed as much as they have to mankind? I do not think so. Do they have more credentials than I? Yes. Is it at all possible that I could be just as qualified in my field? Yes. Without knowing what you are asking, I cannot truthfully answer your question.

 

[Elioenai26]

So on that do you base this assertion?

Did you mean to ask on "what" do I base my assertion?

Do you also apply this to women? children? Those born with Rhys or Down syndrom? What about those that suffer from brain trauma, disease, tumors? What about Phineas Gage?

I apply it to myself. I said that I am 100% responsible for my actions.

However, I will say in general that a person is culpable for their actions to the degree that they are capable of discerning that they are accountable for said actions. This differs from person to person according to one's cognitive and decision making capacity.

In courts of law throughout the world, it is generally held that children, especially those who are preteens, are not held to the same degree of culpability as adults are. This is just one example of course.

 

[Davian]

In what manner are you asking if I count myself among their ranks? Am I famous? No. Have I contributed as much as they have to mankind? I do not think so. Do they have more credentials than I? Yes. Is it at all possible that I could be just as qualified in my field? Yes. Without knowing what you are asking, I cannot truthfully answer your question.

The subject was scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution, which incorporates the work of Watson and Crick.

You said, "They now have a theory. I have some too."

You are the one that made the association. You tell me how your theories warrant comparison.

 

[Max S Cherry]

The subject was scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution, which incorporates the work of Watson and Crick.

You said, "They now have a theory. I have some too."

You are the one that made the association. You tell me how your theories warrant comparison.

The subject of the discussion was pacifism. During the course of the discussion, you brought up scientific theories, and now you appeal to authority.

As long as we are talking about theories, we are talking about things absent proof (in my view), and as long as we are not dealing in proof, I say all theories warrant comparison. Yours, mine, and theirs are all on equal footing. Since you brought them into our discussion, you might start by telling me what they have to do with our discussion, and if I agree, we can continue. If they have nothing to do with it other than offer theories, I cannot see how they will benefit you or your point unless you contend that the popularity, age, or general acceptance of a theory adds something to its validity.

Is that your contention?

 

[Davian]

The subject of the discussion was pacifism. During the course of the discussion, you brought up scientific theories, and now you appeal to authority.

As long as we are talking about theories, we are talking about things absent proof (in my view), and as long as we are not dealing in proof, I say all theories warrant comparison. Yours, mine, and theirs are all on equal footing. Since you brought them into our discussion, you might start by telling me what they have to do with our discussion, and if I agree, we can continue. If they have nothing to do with it other than offer theories, I cannot see how they will benefit you or your point unless you contend that the popularity, age, or general acceptance of a theory adds something to its validity.

Is that your contention?

I see now that you are just playing with definitions to suit your purposes. From dictionary.com:

1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Whatever your intent was by doing this, it is a discussion killer for me.

Merry Christmas, anyway.

 

[Davian]

Max, don't hesitate to tell Elio and myself to take this derail elsewhere.

Did you mean to ask on "what" do I base my assertion?

Nevermind; you said you did not have support for your assertion.

I apply it to myself. I said that I am 100% responsible for my actions.

That you take responsibility for your actions does not demonstrate what you mean by 'free will'.

However, I will say in general that a person is culpable for their actions to the degree that they are capable of discerning that they are accountable for said actions. This differs from person to person according to one's cognitive and decision making capacity.

In courts of law throughout the world, it is generally held that children, especially those who are preteens, are not held to the same degree of culpability as adults are. This is just one example of course.

So, do these persons lack the 'free will' that you have?

 

[Max S Cherry]

Whatever your intent was by doing this, it is a discussion killer for me.

I am sorry you feel this way, but I hope you will reconsider.

I see now that you are just playing with definitions to suit your purposes.

I am not playing with definitions. I hope you can understand that my agnosticism does not allow me to subscribe to the same conclusions you have reached regarding some definitions. It is not a game to me.

From dictionary.com:

1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

The problems with the definition are that it states "more or less verified" which to me means the same as "not verified" therefore not proven; it states "established explanation" which to me means nothing since being the established explanation does not mean proven; it states "known facts or phenomena" which requires proof but does nothing to tell me how this proof is to be known. To me it seems that it is nothing more than a guess.

I simply do not agree with the definitions. There is no more to it than that.

 

[Davian]

I am sorry you feel this way, but I hope you will reconsider.



I am not playing with definitions. I hope you can understand that my agnosticism does not allow me to subscribe to the same conclusions you have reached regarding some definitions. It is not a game to me.




The problems with the definition are that it states "more or less verified" which to me means the same as "not verified" therefore not proven; it states "established explanation" which to me means nothing since being the established explanation does not mean proven; it states "known facts or phenomena" which requires proof but does nothing to tell me how this proof is to be known. To me it seems that it is nothing more than a guess.

I simply do not agree with the definitions. There is no more to it than that.

I should try that. I am meeting with my bank manager next week. I will tell him that I do not agree with his definition of 'compound interest', and that I should have tens of thousands of dollars where their records show only thousands.

I have no idea what form you think these 'proofs' might appear in. You may live in a small wooden shack in the woods, and have never had access to modern medicine, driven in a late model vehicle, or used a internet-enabled computer.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I should try that. I am meeting with my bank manager next week. I will tell him that I do not agree with his definition of 'compound interest', and that I should have tens of thousands of dollars where their records show only thousands.

I think we can agree that this is not the same thing. I say it is different unless you actually have trouble agreeing with his definition of compound interest. I am not merely arguing over the definition of words rather the accuracy of the definitions. I think it always comes back to an understanding of that which one accepts as proof.

I have no idea what form you think these 'proofs' might appear in. You may live in a small wooden shack in the woods, and have never had access to modern medicine, driven in a late model vehicle, or used a internet-enabled computer.

I wish I could tell you, but since I do not know if I have ever encountered a proof, I do not know what one might look like. All of these things you mention may in fact be correct, but I suspect that they are not. It appears as if they are wrong.

 

[Davian]

I think we can agree that this is not the same thing. I say it is different unless you actually have trouble agreeing with his definition of compound interest. I am not merely arguing over the definition of words rather the accuracy of the definitions. I think it always comes back to an understanding of that which one accepts as proof.

It is the same thing. You are merely arguing over the definition of words.

As I said before, science does not do "proofs". You sound like someone complaining that pop-up toasters will not bake cupcakes.

I wish I could tell you, but since I do not know if I have ever encountered a proof, I do not know what one might look like. All of these things you mention may in fact be correct, but I suspect that they are not. It appears as if they are wrong.

May I paraphrase you?

"The scientific theories on which the internet-enabled computer with which this post was made may in fact be correct, but I suspect that they are not. It appears as if they are wrong."

To you take issue with this statement?

 

[Max S Cherry]

It is the same thing. You are merely arguing over the definition of words.

It is not the definition that I disagree with. It is the accuracy of those definitions.

You posted the following: "1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."

I am not arguing against those definitions. It represents my understanding of the terms "hypothesis" and "theory" as well. I am arguing that the definition is not accurate, or if it is accurate, we will likely not be able to prove it.

Those are two separate issues. I agree that those are the correct definitions. I do not agree that the correct definitions are accurate.

As I said before, science does not do "proofs". You sound like someone complaining that pop-up toasters will not bake cupcakes.

I know this, and if you stop mentioning theories as if they are some proven, rock solid thing upon which you base your arguments, we can move on. We disagree on the reliability of theories, we disagree on the strictness of proof, and we know this now. We can move forward. I really do wish pop-up toasters would bake cupcakes. That is science I can get behind.

May I paraphrase you?

Yes of course, but only if you do it correctly.

"The scientific theories on which the internet-enabled computer with which this post was made may in fact be correct, but I suspect that they are not. It appears as if they are wrong."

To you take issue with this statement?

First, that is not an accurate paraphrasing or restatement of what I said. I was not speaking of the theories you mentioned when I made the statement.

You posted: "You may live in a small wooden shack in the woods, and have never had access to modern medicine, driven in a late model vehicle, or used a internet-enabled computer."

It is to this post of yours that I responded.

Secondly, I do not have any issues with your statement except the "I suspect they are not," and "It appears as if they are wrong" parts.

 

[Max S Cherry]

It is the same thing. You are merely arguing over the definition of words.

I think it is safe to say that you and I disagree on certain matters, and that should be expected I suppose. We are different people. If it is okay with you, how about we return to pacifism? Do you think we should start a new thread to point the discussion back to its original topic?

What I am interested in knowing is how you and others would answer the following questions.

1) Do you think it is ever acceptable (right, moral, etc.) for one person to kill another person?

and

2) If you do, what are the circumstances?

or

3) If you do not, why do you think that way?