cyberbard on March 19, 2009, 10:27:28 am
Let me just say that I would not want to be in Guy's shoes right now.  Rock, meet Hard Place.  Shake.

KBCraig on March 20, 2009, 02:15:46 am
He's getting to face hard reality right now, coming face to face with what is right, versus what is politically and socially acceptable.

3/20 is a great strip.

SandySandfort on March 20, 2009, 08:07:52 am
He's getting to face hard reality right now, coming face to face with what is right, versus what is politically and socially acceptable.

3/20 is a great strip.

Thank you. When we are young and impressionable, we get our heads filled with crap. Our job as adults, is to seek the truth and live by it instead of the crap. What we can do for our fellow man, is to fight the lies, pass along the truth and encourage critical thinking in the young. Each one, teach one--not grandiose social crusades--is what really changes the world.

deadasdisco on March 20, 2009, 12:48:23 pm
Quote
He's getting to face hard reality right now, coming face to face with what is right, versus what is politically and socially acceptable.

Quote
Our job as adults, is to seek the truth

Hard Reality?  Then I'd be right in assuming that we're coming from a viewpoint of "Right and Wrong are somehow more objective then my taste in ice cream"? 

Listen, I don't really mind the moralizing from the strip that much because a writer's got to write what's in them, besides, the whole 'hero/villain' thing requires a line to draw between them, and I've found from experience (all unpublished, of course) that you can't write a character sympathetically if you don't like the little bastard yourself.  So, yeah...

But 'Hard Reality'?  'Truth'?  In a conversation about right/wrong/whatever?  Really?  Giving objective weight to what amounts to a feeling of "don't likee"?  Alright, whatever gets you through to breakfast, I suppose...
« Last Edit: March 20, 2009, 03:04:45 pm by deadasdisco »

Scott on March 20, 2009, 02:32:06 pm
There are no moral relativists in foxholes.

deadasdisco on March 20, 2009, 03:42:09 pm
Yeah, feel free to disregard my last post.  It was before lunch and I was hungry, tired and cranky.  Since a hearty meal of sandwich and reason, I've thought better of it.  Getting into it about morals is a lot like getting into it about religion or politics, no one gets convinced and everyone gets pissed.

I do try to limit myself to analysis, the other stuff just spills out sometimes.  Mea Culpa.  ;D

deadasdisco on March 20, 2009, 03:44:33 pm
...also, if there's no moral relativists in foxholes, have you thought its because we tend to avoid foxholes in the first place?  :P

wdg3rd on March 20, 2009, 07:50:17 pm
...also, if there's no moral relativists in foxholes, have you thought its because we tend to avoid foxholes in the first place?  :P

Anybody with an IQ above zero tries to, but politicians and other "elites" keep shoving as many (of other people's) kids as they can into them.  At gunpoint, to face other kids' gunpoints.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

Leviathan on March 21, 2009, 04:03:58 am
deadasdisco,
Admittedly, when a comic gets into one of these discussions, it does seem a bit forced.  But, then again, it's something of a tradition.  I don't know whether Heinlein started it, but he used them a lot.  The characters from different worlds sit down, shoot the shit, and discuss whatever it is that's the "point" of the scene/book.  Then again, Jack Chick puts them in his comics too.  So I dunno.

As far as objective/subjective morality, truth and reality in relation to morals, I'd just like to point out that we all do live in the same world.  Or seem to.  Whatever.  Consistent causal chains link events, and elements of these causal chains interact with each other.  From the natures of some of those elements of the causal chains (people), you can do two things with morality.  You can figure that there's some group of these that have special rights to do things that others aren't able to.  This gives you government.  Or you can figure on a universal standard and decide from the interaction types of these people what has beneficial results when they're taken or denied.  Ironically, this is a point which the "utilitarian" group seems to get hung up on because they rely on an ideal "if it could only be done this way" rather than a realistic picture of what happens when something gets implemented.  The irony is that when most people talk about "utilitarian" viewpoints, they're speaking of a group that has rejected the non-aggression principle.  Whereas I came to it from a standpoint of utility of having a single standard and from the benefits of the differing outcomes from differing starting conditions.  Any attempt to impose that double standard government requires under the auspices of doing some good with that special position just results in more and more horrible outcomes.  For that matter, the basic morality of the non-aggression principle is also something that I kind of figured from what I initially thought about social contract theory.  Agreeing not to do to others what you would prefer not to have done to you.  Instead I found out it is just another excuse for a state imposing itself on you without your consent.  Just figured I'd add a few cents (pre-inflation) on the topic of whether it's ridiculous to discuss truth and reality in relation to morality.

Oh, and if you think the morality of somebody robbing/raping/killing you is a matter of personal taste like what flavor of icecream you like?  Well, I've got a couch you could sleep on if you'd like to see Vegas.  Ignore the cutlery and assorted bondage gear.

No, that's not a threat.  And in all honesty, even given the opportunity to do so without consequences, I wouldn't really do it.  I'm a moral person, heh.  Just a demonstration of the principle, really, that if the intactness of your person is threatened you will put the question of whether it's "moral" to the wayside and defend yourself.

wdg3rd,
And even if we're not directly involved in the shooting, they put the blood on our hands because of complicity in voting and financing of these murderous acts.  Stefan Molyneux' Standing in Blood ends with the horror of this part.  We pay for any government we support with complicity in the murders it commits.  Roads, schools, defense, leads to effective genocide.  Because it's what government is.  And, frankly, I do feel the weight of that blood just because gov has made it so that to live, I'm paying into the support of its murder.  I pay for murder, so that I may live.  And I have no choice besides that.

Rocketman on March 21, 2009, 10:27:24 am
  We pay for any government we support with complicity in the murders it commits.  Roads, schools, defense, leads to effective genocide.  Because it's what government is.  And, frankly, I do feel the weight of that blood just because gov has made it so that to live, I'm paying into the support of its murder.  I pay for murder, so that I may live.  And I have no choice besides that.
  Let's all hope that like the "Divine right of Kings" humanity comes to realize that it's ultimately destructive to the soul and becomes abolished.  I just hope that I live long enough to see it.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 10:30:30 am by Rocketman »

deadasdisco on March 21, 2009, 12:03:15 pm
Wow, you know, I usually stay out of this sort of thing, but I must just be in a mood for trouble this week.  Sometimes I forget that on the internet, no one knows you and doesn't know that you're not supposed to be taken seriously. 

-wdgthird: Listen, I was just trying to be witty, not making a legitimate point.  If it was in poor taste, which I suspect it was, then I apologize.  The good-midwestern-boy filters usually catch this stuff, but not every time.

-Leviathan:
Quote
But, then again, it's something of a tradition.  I don't know whether Heinlein started it, but he used them a lot
Hey, I never complained about the moralizing in the strip.  Like I said, writers have to write what's in them, or it ends up rubbish...

Quote
Oh, and if you think the morality of somebody robbing/raping/killing you is a matter of personal taste like what flavor of icecream you like?  Well, I've got a couch you could sleep on if you'd like to see Vegas.  Ignore the cutlery and assorted bondage gear.

No, that's not a threat.  And in all honesty, even given the opportunity to do so without consequences, I wouldn't really do it.  I'm a moral person, heh.

I know that's not a threat.  Although I've been lost in Vegas before...
And just to be clear, I'm not totally without an internal 'moral compass' myself (at least, I like to think I'm not), but morality is a bit of a "black box" issue, (again, kind of like ice cream tastes) since reason can only take you so far into it, after that it gets into things that can't be rationally discussed, because they aren't rational.  Why is 'robbing/raping/killing' Bad?  I don't know.  Now I do know I don't like them (I also dislike butterscotch, clip-on ties and reality television), and would like them even less if they were happening to me, but what's that got to do with anyone else?  Why should my disliking it keep them from doing it?  Will I oppose them doing them?  OK, like as not, yes.  However, its because I really don't like those activities, don't like them happening to me and don't like the kind of world they make, but its not because I have a 'right' to do so or because its part of some great, universal Moral Imperative (tm).  Its on a much larger scale then the other preferences, but it springs from the same well.  I'd LIKE it if other people shared my likes and dislikes on this stuff, and things are easier when they do, but that doesn't compel them to, does it?  And there is no compelling them to, not deep down on the level of belief.  Which leads me to believe that its only possible to reason about morality in the details, rational discussion needs a bedrock of common  assumptions, which means with people whose Black Boxes give the same, or similar, results to your own.

Which has got to go on record as one of the longest arguments against arguing about something ever written...

deadasdisco on March 21, 2009, 12:10:05 pm
Oh, and on a totally unrelated note, I do like how the Holy Trinity (Scott/Sandy/LEE!) on 3/20 noted the French and European fascination with American cowboys and cowboy mythology.  I don't know if comics can be used to make an observation on a culture, but working in a comic shop, there are a LOT of French especially, Cowboy and Western comic strips, "Blueberry" and "Lucky Luke" come immediately to mind.

SandySandfort on March 21, 2009, 06:07:49 pm
Oh, and on a totally unrelated note, I do like how the Holy Trinity (Scott/Sandy/LEE!) on 3/20 noted the French and European fascination with American cowboys and cowboy mythology...

The was brought home to me by my then girlfriend, a German. As a child, she and thousands of other German boys and girls were entranced by stories of "Winnetou" an imaginary Apache warrior and his cowboy sidekick, "Old Shatterhand." (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnetou.) These stories were written by Karl May, who had never been to America. In fact, he wrote a good portion of the Winnetou stories while he  was in prison. Children's Winnetou camps sprang up all over German and Austria. Now there are Winnetou camps for adults where Germans can camp in tepees, ride horse and engage in totally fabricated Apache rituals.

Rocketman on March 21, 2009, 06:29:11 pm
Sandy, that's not just a European thing or even a Japanese.  Back when there were actually things like that happening in the old west say around 1870 thru 1895, a lot of eastern writers who worked for eastern newspapers used to sell dime novels to the masses who never actual saw a real indian or cowboy in their lives but imagined that was what the real west was like.  What the masses didn't know was that the people who made up those stories never probably left the northeast U.S. either.  That's why Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show was so popular.  Cody just reenforced the sterotypes of the time and made a boatload of money. ;D

Jackson on March 23, 2009, 12:14:51 am
Random question: Does Guy have any friends or acquaintances serving in the UW Navy or Marine Corps who might be present at the impending battle of Ceres?
Quote
...also, if there's no moral relativists in foxholes, have you thought its because we tend to avoid foxholes in the first place? 


Anybody with an IQ above zero tries to, but politicians and other "elites" keep shoving as many (of other people's) kids as they can into them.  At gunpoint, to face other kids' gunpoints.
You do realize that you are insulting every member of the all volunteer United States military, implying that they somehow have IQs below zero? No one has been shoved into a foxhole at gunpoint in the United States since the Vietnam War ended.
Quote
Roads, schools, defense, leads to effective genocide.
Wait, roads and schools lead to genocide? According to the United Nations:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

How in God's name are roads or schools doing any of that?
 
Quote
Let's all hope that like the "Divine right of Kings" humanity comes to realize that it's ultimately destructive to the soul and becomes abolished.  I just hope that I live long enough to see it.
I haven't seen any evidence that your libertarian philosophy is catching on. In the last election, more people voted for the ridiculously statist Ralph Nader than voted for the Libertarian candidate. Meanwhile, Barrack "Lenin" Obama is raising Government spending to new heights.

 

anything