Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Wealth Destruction Options · View
Monocle
Posted: Saturday, August 10, 2013 12:05:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
1ball wrote:


Let me get this straight. You assumed a universal sense


No. I _answered_ in a universal sense. I made no assumptions about what sense you intended, and the question was open-context, so I chose to answer in the universal sense. You responded with a personal-scale question ("why do you keep living it") and then a protestation ("I only asked if you believe life is good") without further context elaboration, after which I pointed out you didn't define the scale of life you were asking about. So, what scale are you asking about?

1ball wrote:
And that's my failure to define life but not your failure to ask for a clarification?


I'd call it a mutual failure.

1ball wrote:
So I'm responsible for the conclusions you jump to?

I am now guessing (and belatedly, apologetically asking for clarification) that your definitions of 'life' and possibly 'good' differ from mine.
You are no more responsible for conclusions I may jump to than I am for the ones you're jumping to.

1ball wrote:
And that passes as critical thinking in your opinion?

The 'that' to which you are referring - which is essentially a demonstration in how well or how badly you and I are communicating meaning to each other - is not a critical thinking exercise. So no, that is not my claim.


1ball wrote:
So you believe your life is good. Following on that, do you believe the acts you necessarily commit to continue living are good acts?


Not necessarily. It depends on definitions of 'good'. I think that 'good' "my life being good" and "acts to continue living being good" are qualitatively different.

1ball wrote:
In critical thinking, value judgements are acceptable and sometimes required to make the answer rationally derived. So let's get back to the question. Has he deprived anyone of anything they are entitled to?


That's back to square one. What culture, socio-economic structure, interpersonal psychology are we talking about? What is the definition of entitlement in his society?
budwilliams
Posted: Saturday, August 10, 2013 1:45:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/17/2011
Posts: 502
Location: United States
1ball wrote:
If you believe the rest of your answer is relevant to the question I asked, please explain why.


Please explain why you think it irrelevant
redhot363236
Posted: Saturday, August 10, 2013 2:16:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/16/2011
Posts: 755
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


Then the morality of such things as slavery and murder is relative?


I have a friend who served 22 years in the Marine Corps and keeps a list of all the places he has killed people during that time tattooed on his arm so he will never forget to honor the bravery and sacrifice of his fallen enemies
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 3:46:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
budwilliams wrote:


Please explain why you think it irrelevant


You first.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
redhot363236
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 4:16:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/16/2011
Posts: 755
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


You first.


Yes, Mike .....

I'm sorry, but you sound just like my husband
He's always right and I'm just a stupid retard who can't see his simple logic --
I could be agreeing with him, even quoting him word for word, and he still berates me for having such a stupid idea
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 4:40:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:
So, what scale are you asking about?


The scale meant when someone says, "Life is a journey, not a destination."

Quote:
That's back to square one. What culture, socio-economic structure, interpersonal psychology are we talking about?


One where you would make a decision that he either does or doesn't deprive you or anyone else of something you or they have a right to.

Quote:
What is the definition of entitlement in his society?


A valid claim on.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 6:00:40 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,296
Are you a Logic and Critical Thinking Professor or just a wannabe? Sounds exactly like my L&CT Professor who raised more questions with every one gave. Futile and frustrating conversational fodder. But then, I understand I'm not the most critical of thinkers. Treat me well, I treat you better. Cross me and I cross you off my list of critical trust and Critical Friendship. About as critical as it gets for me. But have your fun.
Monocle
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 6:35:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
1ball wrote:

Monocle wrote:

So, what scale are you asking about?

The scale meant when someone says, "Life is a journey, not a destination."

That's pretty abstract, so I am left to interpret. I interpret it to imply human life, in general. Human life is not inherently good.

And you've still left 'good' undefined. I believe we have different interpretations, so I'd like to know yours.

1ball wrote:

Monocle wrote:

That's back to square one. What culture, socio-economic structure, interpersonal psychology are we talking about?

What is the definition of entitlement in his society?

One where you would make a decision that he either does or doesn't deprive you or anyone else of something you or they have a right to.

A valid claim on.

Those are non answers (to be fair, "definition of entitlement" was given in a dictionary sense, but completely ignored the context in which it was asked. Critical thinking was not applied in that answer. Literal thinking was). What are the structures of rights and entitlements of the society in question?
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 9:56:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:
That's pretty abstract, so I am left to interpret. I interpret it to imply human life, in general. Human life is not inherently good.


Are you judging the lives of others as not good when deciding that human life is not inherently good?

Quote:
And you've still left 'good' undefined. I believe we have different interpretations, so I'd like to know yours.


Well for me, when applied to my life, the phrase "life is good" is an axiom. It is true as long as the capacity for consciousness exists. Is that not true for yours? So in this case, good means worth the cost to me of continuing. Is that not so for yours? I would assume that life is good for anybody who is still consciously attempting to continue their life. Don't you?

Quote:
Those are non answers (to be fair, "definition of entitlement" was given in a dictionary sense, but completely ignored the context in which it was asked. Critical thinking was not applied in that answer. Literal thinking was). What are the structures of rights and entitlements of the society in question?


I see no need to connect rights and entitlements to a particular society. I see no entitlement to anything in any society when my answer to the question "By what right, are you entitled to that." is "By no right." So you have the opportunity to apply critical thinking to derive your answer. You are insisting on a connection between rights and entitlements to a society in question, so you get to explain why that's required for you to be able to come up with an answer other than "it's subjective". Until you do, the answer you gave is indistinguishable from "not AFAIK but I refuse to say that and instead I throw a requirement on and act like it has meaning".

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
CandiceSmiles
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:00:32 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/15/2013
Posts: 15
Location: The land of the unicorns
why would anyone destroy there wealth? this thread doesnt make any sense.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:04:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:
Are you a Logic and Critical Thinking Professor or just a wannabe?


Neither. I'm just someone who likes to see what kind of stuff people come up with when offered a chance to display critical thinking.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:10:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CandiceSmiles wrote:
why would anyone destroy there wealth? this thread doesnt make any sense.


That question is not relevant to the answer. Maybe he just likes to hear the plunk of ingots when they fall into the water. Maybe he specifically wants to keep it from whoever would get it when he croaks. That really doesn't matter as the question is about the thoughts of others.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
CandiceSmiles
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:16:46 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/15/2013
Posts: 15
Location: The land of the unicorns
1ball wrote:


That question is not relevant to the answer. Maybe he just likes to hear the plunk of ingots when they fall into the water. Maybe he specifically wants to keep it from whoever would get it when he croaks. That really doesn't matter as the question is about the thoughts of others.


I don't even understand what you are saying beside plopping stuff in water. Sound like a crazy person. Nutbag
I am asking. Why would someone destroy there own wealth? Do they have money to burn?
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:23:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CandiceSmiles wrote:


I don't even understand what you are saying beside plopping stuff in water. Sound like a crazy person. Nutbag
I am asking. Why would someone destroy there own wealth? Do they have money to burn?


He's the richest person in the world. He has money to do whatever he wants with. Billions. Maybe he's crazy, but that's irrelevant. The answer to the question does not require you to understand his motive.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Monocle
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:32:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
1ball wrote:

Are you judging the lives of others as not good when deciding that human life is not inherently good?


No.

1ball wrote:

Well for me, when applied to my life, the phrase "life is good" is an axiom. It is true as long as the capacity for consciousness exists. Is that not true for yours?

No.

1ball wrote:

So in this case, good means worth the cost to me of continuing. Is that not so for yours?

That's a usable definition. For a personal sense, for how I feel about my own life, I can agree "life is good". Universally, though, by this definition, not all life is good.

1ball wrote:

I would assume that life is good for anybody who is still consciously attempting to continue their life. Don't you?

No. I would not automatically make that assumption.


Quote:
I see no need to connect rights and entitlements to a particular society.

Then you've left your thought experiment hopelessly open ended. Any answer can be chosen with equal justification, because the answerer can insert any right or entitlement system they wish. You've obviated the need for critical thinking.

Quote:
So you have the opportunity to apply critical thinking to derive your answer. You are insisting on a connection between rights and entitlements to a society in question, so you get to explain why that's required for you to be able to come up with an answer other than "it's subjective".

This isn't rocket science.
If one is to verify the truth or falsehood of a yes or no answer to "Has he deprived anyone of anything they are entitled to?" (since critical thinking is applied to determine the truth of a statement, not the answer to a yes or no question) one has to know what the entitlement system of the society in question is. Not having that definition makes the question "Has he deprived anyone of anything they are entitled to?" unanswerable. Not supplying one forces the answerer to either generate an interpretation themselves or formulate an answer for all possible cases. The former could involve critical thinking but doesn't require it, and could always be accused of being aribtary. The latter requires encyclopedic knowledge and produces volumes of ultimately useless answers.

However, you do in fact supply _an_ answer on entitlement, which I'll take for example:
Quote:
I see no entitlement to anything in any society when my answer to the question "By what right, are you entitled to that." is "By no right."

This interpretation would result in the answer to your thought experiment "no one has been deprived of anything they are entitled to, because no one is entitled to anything."
CandiceSmiles
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:37:39 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/15/2013
Posts: 15
Location: The land of the unicorns
1ball wrote:


He's the richest person in the world. He has money to do whatever he wants with. Billions. Maybe he's crazy, but that's irrelevant. The answer to the question does not require you to understand his motive.


Who is the richest guy? Tell him to give me some, im broke.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:53:00 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,296
1ball wrote:
Neither. I'm just someone who likes to see what kind of stuff people come up with when offered a chance to display critical thinking.


Well, trying to 'think critically' here, I'd say your response to the those who have taken the time to answer is flippant crap. Taking a good look at your responses to many who have posted their opinions, it appears pretty clear that you're just looking for a good argument. Posters who have given you their answers don't seem to be good enough for you. At least not up to the standards you appear to be looking for. So...argue on 1-Ball while I go shoot some 8 Ball. Wish me luck.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 11:24:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:
Then you've left your thought experiment hopelessly open ended. Any answer can be chosen with equal justification, because the answerer can insert any right or entitlement system they wish. You've obviated the need for critical thinking.


As long as you explain why you've inserted that right or entitlement system in order to derive your answer, I don't see a problem with that. The only thing you can't do is insert a system that would conflict with the scenario, which offers you some clues about how his society works, but those clues do not prevent you from making moral arguments that would be different from legal arguments derivable from them.

Quote:
If one is to verify the truth or falsehood of a yes or no answer to "Has he deprived anyone of anything they are entitled to?" (since critical thinking is applied to determine the truth of a statement, not the answer to a yes or no question) one has to know what the entitlement system of the society in question is.


Firstly, critical thinking is applied for other things than to determine the truth of a statement. By limiting yourself to the belief that you must produce a true answer instead of a logically valid answer based on the scenario, you're ignoring the wide range of logically valid answers that don't require truth and that can be derived through critical thinking.

Quote:
Not having that definition makes the question "Has he deprived anyone of anything they are entitled to?" unanswerable.


I disagree. You could say, "I don't believe I have a valid claim on his wealth and I can't see that anyone else does either." That answer could be right or wrong, true or false, derived through critical thinking or not, but if you explain how it's based on the scenario, that explanation could display critical thinking.

Quote:
Not supplying one forces the answerer to either generate an interpretation themselves or formulate an answer for all possible cases. The former could involve critical thinking but doesn't require it, and could always be accused of being aribtary. The latter requires encyclopedic knowledge and produces volumes of ultimately useless answers.


The former does not have to require critical thinking, but if you want it to be accepted as an example of critical thinking, it helps.

Quote:
However, you do in fact supply _an_ answer on entitlement, which I'll take for example:
Quote:
I see no entitlement to anything in any society when my answer to the question "By what right, are you entitled to that." is "By no right."

This interpretation would result in the answer to your thought experiment "no one has been deprived of anything they are entitled to, because no one is entitled to anything."


How did you determine that no one is entitled to anything? My statement does not prevent me from securing a right to something by means mentioned in the scenario (contracts).

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 11:27:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CandiceSmiles wrote:


Who is the richest guy? Tell him to give me some, im broke.


Do you think you deserve some just because you're broke?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 11:32:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:
Well, trying to 'think critically' here, I'd say your response to the those who have taken the time to answer is flippant crap. Taking a good look at your responses to many who have posted their opinions, it appears pretty clear that you're just looking for a good argument. Posters who have given you their answers don't seem to be good enough for you. At least not up to the standards you appear to be looking for. So...argue on 1-Ball while I go shoot some 8 Ball. Wish me luck.


The description for The Think Tank is "Adult Swim - discussions and debate of a more serious and heavyweight nature". Sometimes it seems more like The Feel Tank.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Sunday, August 11, 2013 11:37:22 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,296
No...not The Feel Tank. And believe me I know what the Think Tank is. If you like I can refer you to some pretty heated debates I have been involved in the Think Tank. You can thread-quote and debate until the cows come home but at some point anothers opinion should be accepted as their reality. Otherwise it isn't the "Feel Tank" or even the "Think Tank". It's the "You're Wrong and I'm Here To Tell Ya About It Tank". It's why I asked if you're a professor. They can be like that ya know.
Monocle
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 6:23:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
1ball wrote:

Firstly, critical thinking is applied for other things than to determine the truth of a statement. By limiting yourself to the belief that you must produce a true answer instead of a logically valid answer based on the scenario, you're ignoring the wide range of logically valid answers that don't require truth and that can be derived through critical thinking.


So we have an even more fundamental question unresolved by the OP. You clearly have a different definition of critical thinking and where and how it is applied - and a low intellectual tolerance for those that do not begin with your set of assumptions and definitions. There are more engaging ways of showing we differ in our definitions.


1ball wrote:

Monocle wrote:

1ball wrote:

I see no entitlement to anything in any society when my answer to the question "By what right, are you entitled to that." is "By no right."

This interpretation would result in the answer to your thought experiment "no one has been deprived of anything they are entitled to, because no one is entitled to anything."

How did you determine that no one is entitled to anything?

From your words.

1ball wrote:

My statement does not prevent me from securing a right to something by means mentioned in the scenario (contracts).

It looks pretty clear from your setup no one has contracts on the wealth (or any other aspect of the material) flushed into the sea in your scenario. So unless you wish to add that stipulation as a clarification, my interpretation stands.

The Talmud, this ain't.

1ball
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:00:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:
You clearly have a different definition of critical thinking and where and how it is applied


Yes, it appears I do. I employ critical thinking to arrive at workable solutions in the presence of imperfect knowledge given a known set of preconditions. I estimate probabilities and analyze potentials and determine most probable root causes. I don't refrain from developing a position simply because it might be the wrong position due to a lack of some piece of data that may or may not be relevant. Instead I develop a conditional position based on what is known and can reasonably be derived from that. I make moral judgements and value judgements that allow breaking the laws of my society when necessary. You don't use critical thinking when you do such things?


1ball wrote:

Monocle wrote:This interpretation would result in the answer to your thought experiment "no one has been deprived of anything they are entitled to, because no one is entitled to anything."

How did you determine that no one is entitled to anything?

Quote:
From your words.


Do you mean that no one is entitled to anything he prevented through wealth destruction?




My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Monocle
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:13:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
1ball wrote:

I employ critical thinking to arrive at workable solutions in the presence of imperfect knowledge given a known set of preconditions. I estimate probabilities and analyze potentials and determine most probable root causes. I don't refrain from developing a position simply because it might be the wrong position due to a lack of some piece of data that may or may not be relevant.


I definitely would prefer to refrain from developing a position when I think there is missing relevant data, which is why I ask for it. I think coming to conclusions on incomplete data, especially when that data is gatherable, is fraught, and, in the real world, potentially irresponsible.

1ball wrote:
Instead I develop a conditional position based on what is known and can reasonably be derived from that. I make moral judgements and value judgements that allow breaking the laws of my society when necessary. You don't use critical thinking when you do such things?

Sure. I usually have a lot more raw materialto go on, though, than provided in this scenario.

1ball wrote:

Do you mean that no one is entitled to anything he prevented through wealth destruction?

Given:
I see no entitlement to anything in any society when my answer to the question "By what right, are you entitled to that." is "By no right."

and:
"no one has contracts on the wealth (or any other aspect of the material) flushed into the sea in your scenario"
Yes.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:17:56 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
1ball wrote:

Has he deprived anyone of anything they are entitled to?


I venture to say that the giant semantics-fest that this thread has turned into is due to the three word phrase in bold (above). There's no way that any of us can speak for everyone in this open-ended theoretical question devoid of any culturally specific detail. Therefore the answers either reflect some sort of strident view of how we'd shoehorn our worldview into everyone else's reality if given the choice, or it reflects an inability to answer for others without the specifics necessary to surmise accurately. Only by answering a question that wasn't asked ("all things equal, are you entitled to any of the destroyed wealth"), such as I did, do any other responses exist.

Through Rand-colored glasses, nobody's entitled to anything and fuck you for asking. Through socialist/collectivist glasses, the guy has a responsibility to waste nothing, since it belongs to all of us to begin with and forever more. If each of us declines to use this question as an excuse to paint it with personal politics, then there's no definitive answer to give.
Monocle
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 4:42:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
Nicely said, LadyX
1ball
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 10:13:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Quote:
Given:
I see no entitlement to anything in any society when my answer to the question "By what right, are you entitled to that." is "By no right."


That wasn't a given for the scenario, just a personal statement on how I see the issue of entitlements. Does that change your answer?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 10:21:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


I venture to say that the giant semantics-fest that this thread has turned into is due to the three word phrase in bold (above). There's no way that any of us can speak for everyone in this open-ended theoretical question devoid of any culturally specific detail.


What exactly has culture got to do with it?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 11:42:30 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
1ball wrote:


What exactly has culture got to do with it?


We don't know what the cultural, demographic, political, and otherwise specific givens are in this scenario, as monocle had mentioned a few times. Culture in general, plus specific details, have everything to do with it. It's a very general question youve offered, and presumably on purpose. As such, we can't answer for "anybody" and "anything", based on the info given. General questions like this are well shaded by personal politics, but the all encompassing "anybody/anything" kind of throws intellectual honesty out the window. Under what circumstances can any one person speak for "anybody"?
Guest
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 11:52:12 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,296
Like I said earlier guys...you can debate this guy until the cows come home or until the clock chimes in the new year. A legend in his own mind is just that. Devoid of any rational potential to consider any one's reality. If he had a rifle and a perch to sit in I think they'd call him a sniper. This thread is not an exercise in critical thinking. It's just another mans bully pulpit. IMHO.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.