Relativity

Quote removed Rule 16 violation

See, that's how I work you. I do that because I don't give a fuck about breaking the rules. You post 'O' because you're a ginormous pussy.

You'll never win.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doc Dutch said:
Yes, first college graduate in my family, Perry. Why does that upset you?

I wanted to do so. During Vietnam, the Army had a Warrant Officer helicopter pilot program where they took 18-year-old males, put them through 6 weeks of Warrant Officer school, 6 months of flight training and end up as a Huey copilot in Vietnam before turning 19. That was my Plan A. A four-year degree and a commission was Plan B. So instead of becoming a helicopter pilot 8 months after HS graduation, it took me six years.
Click to expand...

Nice story.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Certainly remarkable, but how do we prove an abstract ethical standard is valid? It's a judgment call.

Is it wrong to kill another human being? It depends. If they are harming no one, then yes. If they are attacking or harming another then no.

Lifeboat ethics; is it wrong to let people drown? It depends. If they can be helped then yes. If the lifeboat is full and in danger of capsizing, then no.
Click to expand...

I think there's a certain self evident aspect to the development of ethical knowledge. "We hold these truths to be self evident".

Assumptions, axioms, and and postulates pervade human scientific, mathmatical, and ethical knowledge, aka Newton, Euclid, and Kant. Ethical knowledge by necessity is fuzzier.

But the fact that nations across the planet collectively agreed to a universal declaration of human rights is fairly remarkable. It seems to indicate there is an ethical standard to aspire to that is largely self evident to the human mind, whether or not governments manage to clear that bar.
 
Cypress said:
I think there's a certain self evident aspect to the development of ethical knowledge. "We hold these truths to be self evident".

Assumptions, axioms, and and postulates pervade human scientific, mathmatical, and ethical knowledge, aka Newton, Euclid, and Kant. Ethical knowledge by necessity is fuzzier.

But the fact that nations across the planet collectively agreed to a universal declaration of human rights is fairly remarkable. It seems to indicate there is an ethical standard to aspire to that is largely self evident to the human mind, whether or not governments manage to clear that bar.
Click to expand...
Agreed looking at the similarities between cultures, both past and present, is a key to understanding fundamental human ethics and morality. Still, it's specifically tied to human beings, not a fundamental law of the Universe.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed looking at the similarities between cultures, both past and present, is a key to understanding fundamental human ethics and morality. Still, it's specifically tied to human beings, not a fundamental law of the Universe.
Click to expand...

Yes, universal in the context of the UN declaration is a code of conduct for humans to aspire to, as is the Sermon on the Mount, or the Analects of Confucius.

So it's relative in the sense it doesn't apply to ground squirrels :)
 
IBDumbass said:
You are an undereducated Wikipedia-Ranger who only holds the opinions that other people tell him to have. Ergo, your assertions are summarily dismissed.
Click to expand...

I'm still laughing :lolup: at your blanket statement that accelerating frames of reference have nothing to do with general relativity.

There's no shame just admitting you have never set foot in a college level physics class.

I have never had an accounting class in my life, and would never try to bullshit my way through a thread on accounting.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, universal in the context of the UN declaration is a code of conduct for humans to aspire to, as is the Sermon on the Mount, or the Analects of Confucius.

So it's relative in the sense it doesn't apply to ground squirrels :)
Click to expand...

...or space aliens. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top