Please help, please???? (batting eyelashes)

by outnfree 35 Replies latest jw experiences

outnfree

((((((((((Respondents))))))))))))
(LOL -- somehow that sounds as though I'm accusing you guys of something. Well, I am. Of being sweethearts!)
Thank you, thank you for the time and effort put into your responses.
The paper is to be an argumentative paper written in {Jack) Meiland format. It is to argue a MORAL issue and the goal is critical thinking skills development. The professor said it was about the strength of objections (inquiry), not about persuasion or winning. It is to show that the position has been thought through and the nature of the objections has been understood. In general, the paper must appeal to logic rather than emotion. We must remember that an argument based on emotion is not reason. Fallacies in the paper will reflect negatively on grades. Also, in cases where there is a legal as well as a moral issue, we are to stick to the moral issue.
I KNOW that I shall have trouble separating emotion from reason, which is why I've enlisted the help of all you clever people!
Rough draft is due 6/11, so I have a little less than 10 days to flesh this out.
Intro,
Thanks for your reminder on the thesis statement content. I was just trying to give the board a little more info on what I might plan to argue.
I will definitely go on a search at the university library for that book you recommended.
((((((Dana))))))
Good thing I like emotional women with no morals!
joy,
As a matter of fact -- the professor specifically stated that it would be okay to get ideas for the paper "from the drunk at the local bar."
Dave,
I can't decide whether I like you better when you're speechless (Noi's AlanF picture thread)? or when you're making my printer work overtime!?
Seriously, I appreciate your thoughts and am certain they will help me compose a better paper. I hope that the expectations of the prof. mentioned above will be helpful as you share further thoughts.
Tanalyst,
I am aware of the legislation in Holland and I'm not sure if I'm supposed to wish you 'bon voyage' or not...
raven,
I am loving school, too, but just a bit freaked out on my first paper!
As I hope you read above, the paper is supposed to use reason to argue an ethical/moral issue in order to develop critical thinking skills (I have virtually none, I'm thinking. lol). So Dave's warning (and yours) were valuable to me.
That's why I love this place: So many different viewpoints FINALLY allowed to be freely expressed, helping me to widen my perspective!
All,
outnfree
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
DannyBear

Out,
Who among us WOULD NOT put our beloved pet, in agony upon being run over, OUT of it's misery???????
Dave never knew you were such a brainiac. Good comments all around here.
Danny
DannyBear

Out,
One additional thought; Who says emotion plays no part in logic?
Logic is an exercise of one's background, knowledge, experience, and individual mores.
Danny
Joyzabel

Outn, did you just call me the "drunk at the local bar" !!!
lol, I just thought that would be an interesting place to get some interesting opinions.
Hugs,
Joy
safe4kids

OH HAPPY DAY! I'M LOVED!!
Dana
seven006

Danny,
I have my moments.
Out,
The short comment on the Alan F. thread was done because, that particular thread finally made me understand the popularity of Austin Powers movies. I love Alan like a brother and we love to give each other shit but, not once in our many conversations did I even think of him as a sex god. I guess I still have a lot to learn about life.
A few more things to consider about logical thinking in relation to morality and context. There is a very provocative thought that was expressed in a book and then later in a movie that I like to use as an example. The Book was Hearts of Darkness and the Movie was Apocalypse Now, the statement came toward the end of the movie. The character that Marlin Brando played was a rouge officer who had gone mad. He was speaking into a tape recorder and talking about the pilots in the Viet Nam war who were dropping napalm bombes that literally melted the flesh off of those it fell on. Napalm is a form of jelled gasoline that stuck to what ever it touched as it burnt it with extreme heat and flames. It was an incredibly gruesome way to die. Napalm was used a lot in the Viet Nam war.
The comment that he made in regard to dichotomy of morality has stuck with me for many years. Here is what he said: "The American government will not allow the pilots who drop the bombs to write the word 'fuck' on their airplanes because it is immoral."
This statement is purely based on an individuals interpretation of morality, but in that context, which level of morality is justified? Logic exposes both as immoral. To those who saw the writing of a cuss word on an airplane as immoral but the bombing of an enemy with napalm as justified, they have dismissed any logical thinking because of their own individual interpretation of morality. Again, I make the statement that in the realm of logical thinking the introduction of individual views of morality can discount all means of logic.
In a different context the writing of the word fuck on an airplane may seem immoral to the average person. In the case presented above it becomes an exercise in hypocrisy. Context is extremely important when one is trying to logically find answers to questions. An open question such as "is euthanasia moral or immoral" in my opinion also depends on the specific context in which it is being discussed.
You have broken down the three variations of context to voluntary, involuntary, nonvoluntary, euthanasia. That is not enough information. More needs to be determined to find a justifiable answer. In logical thinking the more information you can gather on a particular situation the better off you will be in finding a logical answer. Without a complete understanding of context as well as all the facts you can make the wrong decisions whether using logic or not in any given situation. Some times the only right answer is not to answer at all but to ask more questions. When the emphases is put on an individuals personal views of morality, logic can become completely useless. This board is a prime example of that last statement.
Have I made any sense? I have been waiting for my other computer to finish rendering a 3D image and it takes a few hours. It just finished. Next time I will just stick to my favorite pat answer to a question like this, Hell, I don't know, where are all the sex threads!
Take care,
Dave
DannyBear

Dave,
***. When the emphases is put on an individuals personal views of morality, logic can become completely useless. This board is a prime example of that last statement.***
Hold on there big guy. One man's logic is another's perplexity.
Is it logical to tie a braided rope to your ankel and jump off a 50' tower? No. It's very logical for some tribal culture's, it provides a way for the jumper to prove his courage. Illogical to you, to me, but nonetheless logical to the jumper.
There is no one right answer, based on esteemed logic. There can't be because everyone's point of reference is different. Different because we do not approach any dilema from the same focal point.
That is why it pisses me off, when people on this forum attack another's logic. Often it is pretty glairing that the view or conclusion is erronious, but to catagorize another's logic as specious, with no value is haughty, presumptious, and at the least arrogant.
Some portion of a conclusion based on application of logic, can always be found fault with. There is no absolute.
Now how's that for being cock sure of myself?
Danny
Farkel

outnfree,
Here are questions I would ponder if I were to write a logical essay on that subject.
Is the taking of another life under any and all conditions morally wrong?
If not, under what conditions would it not be morally wrong, and why?
If so, is the taking of life under some conditions less worse than the taking of life under other conditions?
If yes, then what are those mitigating conditions and why are they mitigating conditions?
How many mitigating conditions could there possibly be and what are the moral and ethical ranking of each of those conditions?
Is suicide as morally wrong as murdering someone else?
If so, why?
if not, is euthanasia merely suicide with assistants and medical appliances, or is it murder with perpetrators intent on murder?
Do we owe our life choices more to others or more to ourselves?
If we owe our life choices more to others, explain why.
If we owe our life choices more to ourselves than to others and we feel our demise is in our best interests, do we not also have the right to choose how and under what circumstances we can die?
Those are a few questions to get you started. If religion is brought into the equation, it screws everything up, though. Religion is dogmatic, one-sided and black-and-white about such issues.
From a purely humanistic perspective it should be easy to present strong arguments for either side of the issue, since the concepts of "morals" and "ethics" are still subjective even without religion sticking their dirty hands into it.
(I wouldn't have put any thought into this if you hadn't batted your eyelashes, you know!)
Farkel
seven006

Danny,
I don't see where you and I are saying anything different. We are just saying it a different manner.
Read my statement again. I speak of no absolutes. I start out by saying, When the "emphases" is put on an individuals personal views of morality. Note the word "emphases." I go on to say that, logic "can" become completely useless. I again do not say it definitely is useless but that it "can" become useless.
I have also stated several times that all this "is" dependent on individual interpretation. I do not disagree with you about differences of opinion when it comes to how one views logic. What I am saying is when logic is based on individual interpretation on their personal moral views it alters logic and some times completely nullifies it, all based on circumstance.
Cannibalism is pretty much considered immoral, but in a particular circumstance such as the Donner Party or the soccer team in the South American Mountains circumstance can change what some see as immoral into something that becomes logical. Jeffery Dommer did the same exact thing but in a different cercomstance and context. Just because it seemed logical to him to eat people does it make it OK and does it make his actions logical.
The African tower jumper sees that jumping from a tall tower with a vine rope attached to his ankles is logical because of his circumstance and culture. Does that make it logical? Another African tribe when based on their couture sees it logical and morally acceptable to have sex with as many young teen aged girls as he can. To him and in his circumstances he views it as logical. We do not. Everything I have said is based on circumstance and I repeated that several times.
This board is a perfect example of that. I do not see why you take offense to that statement. I did not mention any specific circumstance nor did I mention any names. I attack those who come on this board and try to disrupt. You do too. Robert is a perfect example of my statement. He has presented many extremely ridiculous statements that many have argued with including both you and I. Just because he feels that his viewpoint is logical does that mean we are all simply to shut up and not make a comment based on our own logic? Roberts own views of ethics and morals keeps him from seeing any logic in the arguments presented back to him. This tread speaks of logical thinking practices not whether the logic used is right or wrong. It is all very subjective.
There is absolute logic in the world. If you jump off a high cliff it is absolutely logical that you might fall to your death. Absolute logic keeps most people from doing that. If you put you hand into a camp fire it is logical to think that your had will get burnt, that is another absolute. Now, change the context or add more information and that absolute logic changes. Jump off a cliff with a parachute (change of context and circumstance) and it is no longer logical that you will fall to your death. Put a fire resistant glove on while you reach into the camp fire and the absolute logic again changes according to the change in circumstance. Both cases are logical in figuring the end result. One is painful the other is not. Logical thinking remains the same. The hypothesis and the results change the direction of the logical thought depending on the differences in circumstance.
If someone thinks that god will protect them from getting burnt by them placing their bare hand into the fire, it may seem logical to that person but to anyone else the absolute logic is different. Just because someone else has a different idea and calls it logic doesn't make "his logic" right.
Danny, please don't read anything into what I have said that I did not mean. Either you did not understand what I was getting at or you have something specific about what you thought I meant as opposed to what I was trying to say. This whole thread is about logical thinking with he element of personal views of morals thrown into it. I clearly do not see where your or I are really saying anything different. If you think so then please point it out to me.
Take care,
Dave
DannyBear

Dave,
Offended me offended??? That just not logical my friend. HeHa
I will go you one further, as respects the logic of the African(?) tower jumper. They start very young jumping from low levels working thier way up. In other words thru experience and practice, the 50' jump is no longer illogical but quite sane, in the jumper's mind.
None of the law's (facts) of nature are being ignored, he simply trains to overcome/defeat them. Again we agree, but with the caviat that certain absolutes, can never be ignored or just dissmissed, fire is hot, cold is cold. One need not exercise logic to discover these facts. In fact no schooling or special training is needed to learn about these absolutes.
The logic in the mind of the jumper was learned through trial and error. To an uniformed observer, with no background or experience in tower jumping, might easily conclude it is illogical to perform.
That was my only point. You can't wrap logic into a pretty package, and inform the world that your's (not you personally) is the epitome of sound reasoning.
What sounds reasonable to our mind, may in fact be utter chaos to an outside observer.
When we attack another's stand on jw.com or in real life, it usually must be accompanied by some sort of facts. It is the facts, the unambiguous results, that allow someone to exercise logic, or reasoning ability.
The results of Jeffery Damler's eating people in Chicago(?) was alot of bereaved and angry relatives. Not to mention the resultant punishment for carrying out the crimes. So one is very right and almost compeled to the 'logic'...you shouldn't eat your fellow man.
The Donner Party used other law's and absolutes to apply the logic of eating thier fellow traveler's. You don't eat, you die.
Getting down to my point. Logic is based on personal experience, observation of results, background....and like you said so well circumstance.
I guess we agree, almost implicitly. eh?
My secondary point was, how can we honestly attack someone's logic, or reasoning ability, unless we know all that they know?
Danny
Ps Iam just discussing here, not trying to argueXXXXXOOOOOO

Please help, please???? (batting eyelashes)

Share this