Brian Orakpo

[luvvsuNOT]

I am not assuming that you take a dictionary as absolute. You assumed that I did.

Morality is NEVER absolute and is comprised of many changing factors.  Just because there is no absolution, does not automatically render everything meaningless.  That is a leap in logic equivalent to scaling a mountain in one bound.

There are some areas we will agree on and some we surely will not.  If you want to classify me as anything (which YOU should not as I do not believe in absolute labels) you could classify me as a Democratic Socialist Pacifist Utilitarian.  See what I am getting at?  You, I and everyone else do not fall neatly in one category.  You may want people as pegs to fit neatly in their respective holes, but this is simply an impossibility and the minute you begin to do that, you put false limitations on the individual using your own bias based on whatever you view as the "correct" definition.

Why are you asking about the United Nations?

When I asked if you were a Pacifist you said you were. You attached that label unto yourself.

I believe in moral absolutes. Without moral absolutes then morality does become meaningless in the sense that what is right or wrong is whatever you say it is. It's the world according to TA which befits your malignant narcissism. Which is indeed scaling a mountain in a single bound. 

I thought you would get the UN reference.



Keep posting pictures of yourself

[The True Adonis]

When I asked if you were a Pacifist you said you were. You attached that label unto yourself.

I believe in moral absolutes. Without moral absolutes then morality does become meaningless in the sense that what is right or wrong is whatever you say it is. It's the world according to TA which befits your malignant narcissism. Which is indeed scaling a mountain in a single bound. 

I thought you would get the UN reference.



Keep posting pictures of yourself

Since you believe in absolutes, how do you answer these two scenarios and please explain the basis of your decision and how it applies and/or defines your moral absolutism and what aspects of your answer are morally absolute.

Side Note: I will have new pics up soon, ripped and bigger than ever.  Hope you get a chance to view them....Now on to your assignment below.

Scenario #1
    You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

Scenario #2
     A train is coming to a Y intersection. On the track it is currently on (Track A), five people are tied to the tracks. On the other track (Track B), one man is tied to the tracks. You are standing beside the track switching lever. What do you do?

[The True Adonis]

And this one:
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision.

They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning.

Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard.

As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

[luvvsuNOT]

I like these kind of questions. If one takes a moral position or makes any claims to a absolute moral foundation they should be willing, even eager, to defend them. But I take umbrage at your condescending tone ("now on to your assignment") one that is a defining characteristic of your personality and one of the reasons you are so universally disliked.

But I'm a nice guy usually up for fun and games and will indulge you a bit. So due to time constraints and lack of desire (due to your tone) I will just entertain the first scenario. Not for any reason in particular other than it was first.

Just for the sake of clarity I want to tell you that I believe that an act in and of itself is morally neutral. It is the context that determines it's morality. Having sex is a morally neutral act. If forced then it is rape. In another context it is an expression of love. Killing in of itself is morally neutral. Not all killing is wrong. Murder, the killing of an innocent, is always wrong. An example of a moral absolute.

In the first scenario I will put aside the very real possibility when dealing with a sadist that even if I pull the chair and in effect kill my innocent son that he will still kill the other person, me and anybody else he chooses.

That being said, I would not kill my innocent son as I would be guilty of murder and I believe I will have to answer for my sin. The sadistic guard can and will do anything he wants and he too will have to answer for it. There are higher values than just life and it's not always just a matter of body count. There are some things worth dying for and even killing for.

In discussions such as these one should not necessarily look for agreement but rather clarity. I'm pretty sure you won't agree with my decision but I hope, and I am rushed so may have been a bit sloppy, that I was clear.

[The True Adonis]

I like these kind of questions. If one takes a moral position or makes any claims to a absolute moral foundation they should be willing, even eager, to defend them. But I take umbrage at your condescending tone ("now on to your assignment") one that is a defining characteristic of your personality and one of the reasons you are so universally disliked.

But I'm a nice guy usually up for fun and games and will indulge you a bit. So due to time constraints and lack of desire (due to your tone) I will just entertain the first scenario. Not for any reason in particular other than it was first.

Just for the sake of clarity I want to tell you that I believe that an act in and of itself is morally neutral. It is the context that determines it's morality. Having sex is a morally neutral act. If forced then it is rape. In another context it is an expression of love. Killing in of itself is morally neutral. Not all killing is wrong. Murder, the killing of an innocent, is always wrong. An example of a moral absolute.

In the first scenario I will put aside the very real possibility when dealing with a sadist that even if I pull the chair and in effect kill my innocent son that he will still kill the other person, me and anybody else he chooses.

That being said, I would not kill my innocent son as I would be guilty of murder and I believe I will have to answer for my sin. The sadistic guard can and will do anything he wants and he too will have to answer for it. There are higher values than just life and it's not always just a matter of body count. There are some things worth dying for and even killing for.

In discussions such as these one should not necessarily look for agreement but rather clarity. I'm pretty sure you won't agree with my decision but I hope, and I am rushed so may have been a bit sloppy, that I was clear.

You just exposed yourself as I knew you would. You claim to be a moral absolutist and believe in moral absolutes. You then go on to say that "the context determines the morality".

THIS IS THE TOTAL OPPOSITE OF A MORAL ABSOLUTIST, which you claimed you were originally. (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=278783.msg3946869#msg3946869) YOU ARE NOT A MORAL ABSOLUTIST AS YOU CLAIMED!

Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.


Moral absolutism stands in contrast to categories of ethical theories such as consequentialism and situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

You would do well to learn what moral absolutism is.  Perhaps then you can re-label yourself and then come back with another approach.  I am glad I have been able to educate you in this matter.

[The True Adonis]

I like these kind of questions. If one takes a moral position or makes any claims to a absolute moral foundation they should be willing, even eager, to defend them. But I take umbrage at your condescending tone ("now on to your assignment") one that is a defining characteristic of your personality and one of the reasons you are so universally disliked.

But I'm a nice guy usually up for fun and games and will indulge you a bit. So due to time constraints and lack of desire (due to your tone) I will just entertain the first scenario. Not for any reason in particular other than it was first.

Just for the sake of clarity I want to tell you that I believe that an act in and of itself is morally neutral. It is the context that determines it's morality. Having sex is a morally neutral act. If forced then it is rape. In another context it is an expression of love. Killing in of itself is morally neutral. Not all killing is wrong. Murder, the killing of an innocent, is always wrong. An example of a moral absolute.

In the first scenario I will put aside the very real possibility when dealing with a sadist that even if I pull the chair and in effect kill my innocent son that he will still kill the other person, me and anybody else he chooses.

That being said, I would not kill my innocent son as I would be guilty of murder and I believe I will have to answer for my sin. The sadistic guard can and will do anything he wants and he too will have to answer for it. There are higher values than just life and it's not always just a matter of body count. There are some things worth dying for and even killing for.

In discussions such as these one should not necessarily look for agreement but rather clarity. I'm pretty sure you won't agree with my decision but I hope, and I am rushed so may have been a bit sloppy, that I was clear.

With your choice, you caused an additional death of an innocent instead of just one.  Given the scenario, your son would have been killed either way but you chose to not save another life and another needlessly died because of your own personal vanity. (although you tried to rationalize your solution by making up your own facts not presented in the scenario thus invalidating and altering the given scenario)   So you in effect, would be responsible for a needless death as you could have saved the life of another, knowing your son was going to die either way, and you chose not to.

I would have chosen to pull the chair from under my son as he was going to be shot anyway and I know I would be saving another life.  I would have not been responsible for anyones death since my son was going to die anyways by the guard and I would have stopped the needless killing of another.

In this instance, I think my morality is greater than yours as I saved a life. You did not.


Furthermore, you did not take an absolutist position and you are no moral absolutist as you claimed.  I encourage you to read on what constitutes moral absolutism so you don`t mislabel yourself in the future.

[luvvsuNOT]

You just exposed yourself as I knew you would. You claim to be a moral absolutist and believe in moral absolutes. You then go on to say that "the context determines the morality".

THIS IS THE TOTAL OPPOSITE OF A MORAL ABSOLUTIST, which you claimed you were originally. (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=278783.msg3946869#msg3946869) YOU ARE NOT A MORAL ABSOLUTIST AS YOU CLAIMED!

Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.


Moral absolutism stands in contrast to categories of ethical theories such as consequentialism and situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

You would do well to learn what moral absolutism is.  Perhaps then you can re-label yourself and then come back with another approach.  I am glad I have been able to educate you in this matter.

That's funny. You're such a kid. You act like you've just won a big victory and "exposed me" as a moral absolutist. One that I freely admitted to and thought the point of the scenarios was to defend that position. Then you cut and paste definitions when you already dismissed them when I did. Then, surprisingly, you fail to distinguish neutrality and context. Claiming that they are incompatible with moral absolutes when I clearly gave you an example. A clear example. Killing in and of itself is morally neutral. Big difference between me putting a Cor Bon high velocity 115 grain jacketed hollow point into your pointy littlehead because I'm sick of you posting pics of yourself in black panties then if you were coming at me with a six inch Tanto screaming, "Die moral absolutist!"

Murder, the killing of an innocent human life, is a subset of the boarder catagory of killing in general, whether is be a terrorist, a fatted cow or an insufferable little pointy head spoiled and pampered child wearing black panties and carrying a knife.

This thread had potential. Now you just bore me.

[The True Adonis]

That's funny. You're such a kid. You act like you've just won a big victory and "exposed me" as a moral absolutist. One that I freely admitted to and thought the point of the scenarios was to defend that position. Then you cut and paste definitions when you already dismissed them when I did. Then, surprisingly, you fail to distinguish neutrality and context. Claiming that they are incompatible with moral absolutes when I clearly gave you an example. A clear example. Killing in and of itself is morally neutral. Big difference between me putting a Cor Bon high velocity 115 grain jacketed hollow point into your pointy littlehead because I'm sick of you posting pics of yourself in black panties then if you were coming at me with a six inch Tanto screaming, "Die moral absolutist!"

Murder, the killing of an innocent human life, is a subset of the boarder catagory of killing in general, whether is be a terrorist, a fatted cow or an insufferable little pointy head spoiled and pampered child wearing black panties and carrying a knife.

This thread had potential. Now you just bore me.

Again, you are not a moral absolutist as you claim. A moral absolutist is one who does not use context in their judgment.  You have gone to great lengths to describe that you do use context.  You are the opposite of what you claimed you were. You are not a moral absolutist.

Will you at least concede that you were wrong at calling yourself a moral absolutist?

And in my opinion, given the concentration camp scenario, my morality trumps yours as you could have saved a life, but due to your own personal vanity, you chose not to.

[The True Adonis]

That's funny. You're such a kid. You act like you've just won a big victory and "exposed me" as a moral absolutist. One that I freely admitted to and thought the point of the scenarios was to defend that position. Then you cut and paste definitions when you already dismissed them when I did. Then, surprisingly, you fail to distinguish neutrality and context. Claiming that they are incompatible with moral absolutes when I clearly gave you an example. A clear example. Killing in and of itself is morally neutral. Big difference between me putting a Cor Bon high velocity 115 grain jacketed hollow point into your pointy littlehead because I'm sick of you posting pics of yourself in black panties then if you were coming at me with a six inch Tanto screaming, "Die moral absolutist!"

Murder, the killing of an innocent human life, is a subset of the boarder catagory of killing in general, whether is be a terrorist, a fatted cow or an insufferable little pointy head spoiled and pampered child wearing black panties and carrying a knife.

This thread had potential. Now you just bore me.

Furthermore,  I exposed you as NOT BEING a moral absolutist as you CLAIMED you were.  Please try and pay attention.

[The Master]

Hadronix bringing the ownings

[The True Adonis]

Hadronix bringing the ownings

Someones gotta do it. 

I believe they thank me secretly.  At least they go away enlightened. 

[StickStickly]

Furthermore,  I exposed you as NOT BEING a moral absolutist as you CLAIMED you were.  Please try and pay attention.

What if the guy he threatened to kill if you didn't pull the chair from your own son was Matt C?

[no one]

With your choice, you caused an additional death of an innocent instead of just one.  Given the scenario, your son would have been killed either way but you chose to not save another life and another needlessly died because of your own personal vanity. (although you tried to rationalize your solution by making up your own facts not presented in the scenario thus invalidating and altering the given scenario)   So you in effect, would be responsible for a needless death as you could have saved the life of another, knowing your son was going to die either way, and you chose not to.

I would have chosen to pull the chair from under my son as he was going to be shot anyway and I know I would be saving another life.  I would have not been responsible for anyones death since my son was going to die anyways by the guard and I would have stopped the needless killing of another.

In this instance, I think my morality is greater than yours as I saved a life. You did not.


Furthermore, you did not take an absolutist position and you are no moral absolutist as you claimed.  I encourage you to read on what constitutes moral absolutism so you don`t mislabel yourself in the future.

who cares, you fucking tool.

[The Master]

Someones gotta do it. 

I believe they thank me secretly.  At least they go away enlightened. 

Have you checked out hardon mechanics?

[luvvsuNOT]

Will you at least concede that you were wrong at calling yourself a moral absolutist?

You are now boring me and I intended to no longer participate in this debate but this question had a tone of genuine sincerity so I feel compelled to respond.

I do not accept your Wikipedia definition of moral absolutism anymore than you did not accept my dictionary definition of Pacifism even though I consider a dictionary more reliable than Wiki.

I NEVER SAID I WAS A MORAL ABSOLUTIST. I SAID I BELIEVED IN MORAL ABSOLUTES. BIG DIFFERENCE.

My play on the accusation and admission seem to be a poor attempt at irony and your propensity for the cut and paste and calling foul when others do it. There's often something lost in the translation from verbal speech to written.

You failed to notice that I said it wasn't always about a numbers game. Pure body count as it were. Murder is always wrong. A moral absolute I believe in. Stealing, lying, shooting pointy headed twinks in black panties carrying a knife -- sometimes. Sometimes not. Saying there are moral absolutes is quite different from saying everything is a moral absolute or that I am a moral absolute.

So in that regard you have my concession.

You may call it personal vanity, I call it a moral imperative that I don't commit murder. What someone else does or doesn't do based on my actions is between him and his God or whatever.

Ever wonder why it was often the policy of the NVC to wound rather than kill an American soldier? Because they knew that American's don't leave their wounded soldiers on the field to die and the additional burden put the advantage more on their side. With Americans it's eit her we all come home or nobody comes home. Of course, it would be much more pragmatic if they just leave the wounded soldier to die. After all not only is he worthless on the battle field but he now takes up a good deal of resources and puts everyone else at greater risks. Why do we do it? The Russians don't. They treated their men like canon fodder in WW2. The Chinese don't. And the NVC sure as hell didn't. Why do we do it? Because it's not always just about numbers and pragmatism and naked survival. Why bother taking care of the infirmed? The old and sick? They contribute nothing and only needlessly drain resources. Sure maybe their families and friends care but that's their problem. Why should we?

When soldiers risks their lives and the lives of their comrades to save another wounded soldier it is no longer just about the pure efficacy of survival. We are not just animals. It's not just about how many of us will live, maybe sometimes, but not all the time. Sometimes there are things higher than ourselves. Things worth risking our lives and dying for. When those brave, and some may say stupid, soldiers drag their dying comrade off the field and carry him with them it is then that they rise above being mere animals only concerned about their own survival. It is then that they assert their humanity. That they are more than just flesh and blood. That they have souls.

If we were soldiers in the same platoon fighting a common enemy and you should fall wounded even though I do not like you I would risk my life, the life of my son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father... that we would not just leave you there to die and rot and decompose in the sun like some animal carcass.

We all come home or none of us comes home.

 

[OneManGang]

 

[žoklis]

 

[regmac]

Can't remember the last time I seen a 6'4 260 obese person run a 4.6 40.

DEMARCUS!!!!!!!!!

[Devon97]

what is the point of lifting that heavy weight?  You can build a better body lifting much much much less than that.  He risks injury lifting all this weight if he is serious about a football career. 

Sports performance training isnt about "building a better body" its about improving your speed, strength and explosive power.

Totally diff type of training then your MD or IronMAn juiceheads do in the Smith machine.

[Devon97]

Here come all the "experts" telling the first round pick who just banked 20 mill that he needs to lose weight      I would bet he runs a faster 40 than any of the twinks talking trash.

haha aint that the truth BDY88.