Originally posted by finnegan
You are such a philosophical bunch. Given an empirical, practical topic you immediately seek first principles, fundamental concepts, deep abstractions.

I think Chevron are an evil bunch for spoiling an amazing environment in the selfish pursuit of profit. I think Amazon are an utterly anti social anti competitive bunch, seeking to abuse monopoly powers ...[text shortened]... upted and beyond the pale then you are lost in ideology and beyond the reach of common humanity.

WalMart is pretty damn diabolical, as is McDonalds. Both because they treat their workers worse than toilet germs, among other reasons.

Originally posted by Wajoma
First point. Water is not a 'right', it is a transparent fluid, a chemical compound, hydrogen and oxygen.

Your school science teacher would be so proud!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Your school science teacher would be so proud!

wolfgangs smarmy one liner trips him up, he lands face down in a cow pat.

Of course the point was: Not what water is, but, what water is not. And it applies to any number of things, a job is not a right, a job that does not pay less than some arbitrary state set minimum is not a right, a house is not a right, the list goes on.

So it is not the role of the science teacher to delve into ethics and the definition of rights.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

http://www.khi.co.jp/english/kplant/business/environment/water/index.html

Originally posted by finnegan
You are such a philosophical bunch. Given an empirical, practical topic you immediately seek first principles, fundamental concepts, deep abstractions.

I think Chevron are an evil bunch for spoiling an amazing environment in the selfish pursuit of profit. I think Amazon are an utterly anti social anti competitive bunch, seeking to abuse monopoly powers ...[text shortened]... upted and beyond the pale then you are lost in ideology and beyond the reach of common humanity.

Oh boy, this thread is going to provide some easy pickings.

'Reason' first Finnegan, 'emotion' second. Don't get those two around the wrong way.

A person laughing maniacally. "What are you laughing at?" "I don't know."
A person weeping. "What are you crying about?" "I don't know."
Mr Angry walking down the street ranting and raving "Mr Angry, what is the problem?" "I don't know."

All signs of the lunatic.

We know, you're trying to portray yourself as some kind of Sensitive New Age Guy, it's not really working.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Oh boy, this thread is going to provide some easy pickings.

'Reason' first Finnegan, 'emotion' second. Don't get those two around the wrong way.

A person laughing maniacally. "What are you laughing at?" "I don't know."
A person weeping. "What are you crying about?" "I don't know."
Mr Angry walking down the street ranting and ravin ...[text shortened]... ou're trying to portray yourself as some kind of Sensitive New Age Guy, it's not really working.

First: We are not robots. Emotion is integral to the way we think. It is not possible to make humane judgements in the absence of feeling. The way human psychology works, we feel before we use reason. We see a tiger and run before we consider if that movement might instead be something benign. We hear a bang and leap before considering if it was just a car backfiring.

Second, what marks out the evil corporations is their refusal to apply ethical, humane thinking to their profit making choices. Where we see a sacred piece of rainforest they see an avoidable overhead cost and the chance to plant a uniform, biologically half dead plantation to make palm tree oil. The ability to make judgements without feeling is the mark of a psychopath.

Thirdly, at times the attempt to apply abstract reasoning to an ethical or moral question is a rhetorical trick to distract us from the issue. When normbenign bleats that every corporation has some good and some bad, he is displaying moral thinking at the level of a six year old. When you declare that water is not a right, like weather is not a bicycle and bottle is not a train, you are being facile and making the type of clever word play beloved of a five year old. When whodey wants to turn this into a debate about government (in abstract of course - nothing tangible) then he is playing a rhetorical trick.

Fourthly, if you are not immediately repelled by the behaviour of the listed corporations, prior to seeking any sophisticated rational account, then you are shrivelled up inside.

Originally posted by finnegan
First: We are not robots. Emotion is integral to the way we think. It is not possible to make humane judgements in the absence of feeling. The way human psychology works, we feel before we use reason. We see a tiger and run before we consider if that movement might instead be something benign. We hear a bang and leap before considering if it was just a ca ...[text shortened]... rations, prior to seeking any sophisticated rational account, then you are shrivelled up inside.

"We are not robots..."

You accuse others of being 5 and 6 year olds, of being facile and you kick off your post with "We are not robots..." ?? 🙄 ??

Of course I never made such a claim, nor did I claim emotion should be suppressed, if there's a reason to be angry then be angry. If you have a reason to be happy then be happy. Those would be the appropriate responses. The two examples you gave are not examples of emotion ruling over reason.

My post was a direct response to yours dated, 24 Dec '14 21:15, in which you appealed to others to abandon reason and submit to emotion. Then you make the same mistake here:

"Fourthly, if you are not immediately repelled by the behaviour of the listed corporations, prior to seeking any sophisticated rational account, then you are shrivelled up inside."

Given your record here at RHP and now openly calling for people to abandon the thing that makes them human, their ability to reason, the last thing anyone should do is be 'immediately repelled" on the basis of your wild claims.

Your misuse of the word 'right', your inability to conceptualize what rights are has been pointed out, you should take this advice onboard, try to understand, move beyond the inner 6 year old.

'Reason' first Finnegan, 'emotion' second. Don't get those two around the wrong way.

Your words to which I responded. It is not humanly possible to have any experience of the world that is not shaped by a prior emotional response. When I say you are plain wrong, I am not misquoting you (obviously - see your post above which I quote here) and I am not speaking out of hot air since I can show my sources.

Try this guy: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/103867.Descartes_Error?ac=1

In this wondrously engaging book, Damasio takes the reader on a journey of scientific discovery through a series of case studies, demonstrating what many of us have long suspected: emotions are not a luxury, they are essential to rational thinking and to normal social behavior.

That book seems directly related to my point but the one I have read and learned from was this:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/162370.Looking_for_Spinoza

Originally posted by finnegan

'Reason' first Finnegan, 'emotion' second. Don't get those two around the wrong way.

Your words to which I responded. It is not humanly possible to have any experience of the world that is not shaped by a prior emotional response. When I say you are plain wrong, I am not misquoting you (obviously - see your post above which I quote here) a ...[text shortened]... read and learned from was this:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/162370.Looking_for_Spinoza

Does nothing to refute the point I have made, but quoting a sales pitch/book blurb, is definitely a safer option for you than trying to give words to your own thoughts.

Edit: Or should I say "...is definitely a safer option for you than trying to give words to your own emotions."

Originally posted by Wajoma
Does nothing to refute the point I have made, but quoting a sales pitch/book blurb, is definitely a safer option for you than trying to give words to your own thoughts.

Edit: Or should I say "...is definitely a safer option for you than trying to give words to your own emotions."

My post to which you respond is written in my own words, after which I give a supporting quotation from (indeed) a "sales blurb" descriptive of a book. That quote is sufficient to establish the relevance of the book to my argument.

Consequently your own post is absurd and embarrassingly illiterate.

Your ability to read and comprehend basic English is too limited for a discussion of this type to make progress. Enjoy your Christmas some other way.

Originally posted by finnegan
My post to which you respond is written in my own words, after which I give a supporting quotation from (indeed) a "sales blurb" descriptive of a book. That quote is sufficient to establish the relevance of the book to my argument.

Consequently your own post is absurd and embarrassingly illiterate.

Your ability to read and comprehend basic English ...[text shortened]... too limited for a discussion of this type to make progress. Enjoy your Christmas some other way.

I don't necessarily enjoy it, it's important to be right and correct, so yes, that is a reward in itself but dealing with your philosophy I would compare to cleaning the crapper, it's easy, it's not nice, but someone has to do it.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I don't necessarily enjoy it, it's important to be right and correct, so yes, that is a reward in itself but dealing with your philosophy I would compare to cleaning the crapper, it's easy, it's not nice, but someone has to do it.

...with your tongue I assume.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Might come back to the list but then might not either.

First point. Water is not a 'right', it is a transparent fluid, a chemical compound, hydrogen and oxygen.

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.

So there is such a thing as water rights, and there may be some debate as to the who, when, how and why of water rights, but water itself can never be said to be a right.

"A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others."
pfff. dunno if you thought of this by yourself or you quoted someone. it's stupid, regardless.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A corporation is a human tool; it can be no more "evil" than a hammer.

corporations is people. IS PEOPLE!!!!!!



... according to americans, of course.