4 ms·

So what if they execute people for what they think are crimes? Who are you to judge what people should or should not do? What you label as evil someone will lab

So what if they execute people for what they think are crimes? Who are you to judge what people should or should not do? What you label as evil someone will label as good. There is no absolute evil/good, as you're trying to portray it. It only your opinion vs. their opinion.

jd3 10y ago
While this is somewhat true, it's a somewhat ridiculous argument to bring up when talking about saudi arabia. I think the west has come to the general consensus that women have rights, and that people should not be beheaded in the streets for denouncing their state religious authority. This hermeneutical matter-of-interpretation crap is no defense for the crimes against humanity that saudi arabia commits regularly.
- godembodied 10y ago
  All of the things you mentioned are relative to a culture. Since you were born in the West, you think of all these things as bad. The indoctrination is so strong that you feel that your opinion is an objective fact. But, the same seriousness and objectivity you attach to your opinions they attach to their. Morality is kinda religion - everyone thinks their God or prophet is the TRUE one, when in fact they've been indoctrinated from early childhood to belive some magical stories. This hermeneutical matter-of-interpretation crap is no defense Do you think you can invalidate something by labeling it as 'crap'? I guess schools today don't teach people how to respond with arguments, instead of insults.
  - Retra 10y ago
    Unless you're about to say you don't have a culture, maybe you should accept that people will argue according the culture they have and leave it at that. It's like I said "I like pepperoni pizza," and you're trying to say "no one kind of pizza is objectively better than the rest, so you have no right to choose pepperoni pizza over any other pizza." But in fact I do have this right, being that I'm the one choosing which pizza to eat. If I disagree with someone's morals, it's because I'm the one who's choosing which morals to disagree with. The "who I am to judge" is the one who's doing the judging. Just like you are with your inane position here.
    - shitlordism 10y ago
      Moral statements are usually stated in way that implies objectivity. For example: "It is wrong to rape babies" or the nemedse reply [1] (writes that things are universally bad). Plus, objectivity gives you credibility. That's why people are citing scientific studies, get 3rd parties or submit evidence, instead of saying "I just made it up" or "I pulled it out of thin air" etc. It's like I said "I like pepperoni pizza," and you're trying to say "no one kind of pizza is objectively better than the rest, so you have no right to choose pepperoni pizza over any other pizza This is misleading. "I like pepperoni pizza" or "Jazz is my kind of music" are positive personal preferences. Those are not binding to anyone. It is stated in a way that expresses your positive preference as opposed to criticism of others' preferences. When you start to criticize others' preferences, that's where questions of objectivity come in. People here are saying something more like "People who eat other types of pizza are idiots. Pepperoni pizza is the the most delicious pizza. period.". Then you could ask: "Who are you to say that and call people idiots? You might like it, but it doesn't mean others do and that pepperoni pizza is in fact the most delicious pizza.". That would be a reasonable reply to an arrogant person. But in fact I do have this right, being that I'm the one choosing which pizza to eat. Again. You're mistaking expressing positive personal preferences with criticism of others' preferences. BTW, rights (to express yourself or write on this forum freely) are also related to morality. You are stating "I do have this right..." as if you saying something that's objectively true. Like "I have arms or legs". The same way you think you have rights is how most people think about morality - it's something objective and is not a matter of what anyone else thinks. Concept of natural rights confirms this (inalienable rights that can't be given or taken away by anyone and you have them, not because you think you do, but because you objectively do). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11818411
ng12 10y ago
So where's the line? I'm reading your argument as we shouldn't even try to prevent or even address injustice in other countries as they presumably have some method of justifying it.
nemedse 10y ago
How can you seriously think that? Do you think that crucifying someone for taking part in pro-democratic protests is not universally bad? Why not let our government do it? If they label it as good, who are we to judge ...
- godembodied 10y ago
  How can it be universally bad? Gravity is universal, but morals are relative to individual and groups of individuals(societies). You grew up in the environment where action X is labeled as bad and then you take that so seriously and think it's an objective fact about the world(a universal law), when it's just your point of view.
  - nemedse 10y ago
    I don't want to argue about what is accepted in Saudi Arabia and what is not. But we are talking about a company from the US, which is not stuck in the middle ages AFAIK. It is totally unacceptable that they accept money from, and at the end of the day, provide more money to this dictatorship that goes against the core values of western civilisation.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
lotso 10y ago
Is this really a worthwhile discussion? Seems like you are just playing devil's advocate for the sake of it.
dang 10y ago
Your comments are effectively trolling HN whether you mean them that way or not. Please stop. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11818239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11818239 and marked it off-topic.
tobltobs 10y ago
When there is no common understanding for what is right or wrong, what gives then somebody the right to cut of other people heads for some wrong doing. There can't be any crimes following your logic.

jd3 10y ago

While this is somewhat true, it's a somewhat ridiculous argument to bring up when talking about saudi arabia. I think the west has come to the general consensus that women have rights, and that people should not be beheaded in the streets for denouncing their state religious authority. This hermeneutical matter-of-interpretation crap is no defense for the crimes against humanity that saudi arabia commits regularly.

godembodied 10y ago
All of the things you mentioned are relative to a culture. Since you were born in the West, you think of all these things as bad. The indoctrination is so strong that you feel that your opinion is an objective fact. But, the same seriousness and objectivity you attach to your opinions they attach to their. Morality is kinda religion - everyone thinks their God or prophet is the TRUE one, when in fact they've been indoctrinated from early childhood to belive some magical stories. This hermeneutical matter-of-interpretation crap is no defense Do you think you can invalidate something by labeling it as 'crap'? I guess schools today don't teach people how to respond with arguments, instead of insults.
- Retra 10y ago
  Unless you're about to say you don't have a culture, maybe you should accept that people will argue according the culture they have and leave it at that. It's like I said "I like pepperoni pizza," and you're trying to say "no one kind of pizza is objectively better than the rest, so you have no right to choose pepperoni pizza over any other pizza." But in fact I do have this right, being that I'm the one choosing which pizza to eat. If I disagree with someone's morals, it's because I'm the one who's choosing which morals to disagree with. The "who I am to judge" is the one who's doing the judging. Just like you are with your inane position here.
  - shitlordism 10y ago
    Moral statements are usually stated in way that implies objectivity. For example: "It is wrong to rape babies" or the nemedse reply [1] (writes that things are universally bad). Plus, objectivity gives you credibility. That's why people are citing scientific studies, get 3rd parties or submit evidence, instead of saying "I just made it up" or "I pulled it out of thin air" etc. It's like I said "I like pepperoni pizza," and you're trying to say "no one kind of pizza is objectively better than the rest, so you have no right to choose pepperoni pizza over any other pizza This is misleading. "I like pepperoni pizza" or "Jazz is my kind of music" are positive personal preferences. Those are not binding to anyone. It is stated in a way that expresses your positive preference as opposed to criticism of others' preferences. When you start to criticize others' preferences, that's where questions of objectivity come in. People here are saying something more like "People who eat other types of pizza are idiots. Pepperoni pizza is the the most delicious pizza. period.". Then you could ask: "Who are you to say that and call people idiots? You might like it, but it doesn't mean others do and that pepperoni pizza is in fact the most delicious pizza.". That would be a reasonable reply to an arrogant person. But in fact I do have this right, being that I'm the one choosing which pizza to eat. Again. You're mistaking expressing positive personal preferences with criticism of others' preferences. BTW, rights (to express yourself or write on this forum freely) are also related to morality. You are stating "I do have this right..." as if you saying something that's objectively true. Like "I have arms or legs". The same way you think you have rights is how most people think about morality - it's something objective and is not a matter of what anyone else thinks. Concept of natural rights confirms this (inalienable rights that can't be given or taken away by anyone and you have them, not because you think you do, but because you objectively do). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11818411

ng12 10y ago

So where's the line? I'm reading your argument as we shouldn't even try to prevent or even address injustice in other countries as they presumably have some method of justifying it.

nemedse 10y ago

How can you seriously think that? Do you think that crucifying someone for taking part in pro-democratic protests is not universally bad? Why not let our government do it? If they label it as good, who are we to judge ...

godembodied 10y ago
How can it be universally bad? Gravity is universal, but morals are relative to individual and groups of individuals(societies). You grew up in the environment where action X is labeled as bad and then you take that so seriously and think it's an objective fact about the world(a universal law), when it's just your point of view.
- nemedse 10y ago
  I don't want to argue about what is accepted in Saudi Arabia and what is not. But we are talking about a company from the US, which is not stuck in the middle ages AFAIK. It is totally unacceptable that they accept money from, and at the end of the day, provide more money to this dictatorship that goes against the core values of western civilisation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

lotso 10y ago

Is this really a worthwhile discussion? Seems like you are just playing devil's advocate for the sake of it.

dang 10y ago

Your comments are effectively trolling HN whether you mean them that way or not. Please stop. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11818239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11818239 and marked it off-topic.

tobltobs 10y ago

When there is no common understanding for what is right or wrong, what gives then somebody the right to cut of other people heads for some wrong doing. There can't be any crimes following your logic.