A man in the arena

While your statistical methodology does not appear sound, your conclusion is undeniable. This is more evidence that the end justifies the means. Of course, what else would?
 

Although it appears your talking to yourself, I'm gonna go ahead and feel free to jump in. "Of course, what else would?" I'm assuming is asking what else would justify the means. Isn't it the process that is important? I think it was Camus who argued that Sisyphus' task was the best of all-- because it allowed him to focus on the act itself, not the outcome. Being on the right, I'm sure you rage against all things post-modern. So is it that inconceivable that certain actions are just in and of themselves-- that actions should be judged independent of the results? Or, to stuff it into your cliche cookie cutter format, the means justify the means.
 

"I believe it was Lamus who argued that Snuffleupagus' task was the best of all--"

You are an idiot.

It has been 71 days since Kerry was supposed to release his records, and 84 since the 'Draft' was to take place. These shallow promises were nothing more than campaign gimmicks that didn't work anyhow. Now embittered, the dream team feels as if they owe the people nothing. Fine by me, I am not interested in a liar's records anyway. Perhaps the crew that attempted the fake Bush documents for CBS hasn't been allowed ample time to complete Kerry's? The guy didn't even get hired yet sees it fit to purjure himself. While saddened that you cannot recognize a pair of morons even if they were running for office, it's truly unfortunate that Liddy didn't make his way into your neighborhood.

Here is an idea: quit idolizing Nietzsche, and stop trying to popularize your idea of Satanic stratification you pseudo-existentialist scumbag.
 

I was not talking to myself. The first comment was removed, I assume by the blogger.
 

The first comment was by W.C. Varones. And I have no idea how he pulled a comment off someone else's blog after he posted it. Maybe it was a blogger.com technical error in the first place. His post didn't really address anything I had written. It was like reading something by Minus.

Anyway, this is Varones site: http://wcvarones.blogspot.com.
 

First off Minus, its perjure. Not "purjure." Seeing as you disregard the rules and standards of logical argument and basic priciples of cogent thinking, I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise to me that you make up words too. I guess I just expected more from you.

For example-- you write, I'm assuming to me, that you're "...saddened that you cannot recognize a pair of morons even if they were running for office" I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but lets just examine this sentence irrespective of the context. What does this mean? Are you implying that morons are easier to recognize when running for office-- ergo making my failure to recognize them even more egregious? If so, I think it would be appropriate for you to back up your "argument" with a little something I like to call "evidence."

And accusing me of being an existentialist? Well, I've been called some things in my time, but really. Maybe you decided out of convenience to not actually read my post, but if you hadn't you would of seen that I was arguing that certain actions have a value, regardless of what outcome they produce. How is this existentialism again? Or "pseudo-existentialism" even?

I know, Snuffleupagus told you to say it. Damn imaginary elephants. If he's the one telling you to listen to Liddy too, I really think you need to begin self-medicating immediately.
 

Nemesis,

Regarding evidence: have you been able to find any? Maybe it is “process that is important.” But quoting Camus is not evidence that means justify themselves.

You invade Normandy to drive out the Germans and win the war. It is a good action only because of the intention behind the action: driving out the Germans. Invading Normandy just to conquer Normandy is not a good action because the intention is imperial. Action and intention are inseparable.

You should try using evidence. Everybody’s doing it. It’ll make you popular.
 

I'm glad to see you came to the defense of your girlfriend. Thats very sweet. However, your remarks miss the point.

First, I never said that Camus' example is ironclad evidence that means justify themselves. It was, and I am deliberately avoiding a patronizing tone here, a literary example.

You then throw out the Normandy example, with the tone of "this ends the discussion." Couldn't be further from the case. Invading France is ALWAYS justified. ALWAYS.

What if the Normandy invasion would have failed? The allied army would have been devastated, Churchill and FDR would have been in serious hot water, and, Spielberg wouldn't have any material to use for a preachy, over-hyped movie. Would the Normandy invasion then of been an un-just action? No, of course not.

You get around this problem by introducing "intentions" to the argument. That since the allied intentions were good or, using your language, anti-imperial, they were just. But d.w., that is at worst a different argument than what you advanced in your first point, or at best a non sequitur.

See, you took the evaluation of an action away from the ends, and placed it before the action even takes place-- in the intentions for doing it!

"Action and intention are inseparable." Well, ho fricking hum. While still a debatable point, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Goddamit, am I the only one on this board who can stay focused?

Back to evidence supporting my position. We are engaged in a philosophical (kind of) argument. If you expect me to present statistical analysis, extended case studies, and a DNA sample to support my position, then the argument can end now. The evidence I was refering to is of the logical, inductive/deductive kind. My challenge to Minus was to provide some type of credible reason why a man running for office is inherently easier to identify as a moron than one who isn't. It may be true, but it would have usefull for him to supply some evidence with his position. Feel free to use "evidence" and "some type of cogent fucking argument" interchangeably here.

So back to the means justifying themselves. For a moral/ethical evaluation actions need to be seperated from there consequences. Intent is an entirely different subject. One that in no way supports your original position of ends being the only thing that justify means.

And honestly, the only thing that "everybody's doing" is your girlfriend. And it sure as hell didn't make me popular, it just gave me the clap.
 

Eifert, how is adding additional examples of how Kerry should not be given power not in relation to your original post? In relation to your glasses (as I have seen them), I think the best thing for you would be to create a companion search engine to google.com except for nerds...you could call it 'goggle.com', nerd.

Nemesis, as for the spelling error...touche. Mistakes happen. That is how we happen to be graced with your presence.

As far as the existentialism goes, this is more of a personal attack than anything. That, you should expect. In reference to a certain Nietzsche quote that you seem to be fond enough of, is where that portion of the comment comes from (tied along with the fact that he questioned the morals and foundations of Christianity). This is where the Satanic stratification comes in. As far as being pseudo-existential, (pseudo means not genuine by the way), you would typically like to think that man is completely free and thus responsible for what they make of themselves by virtue of your Camus and Sisyphus reference. You are wrong, and that is why you are a pseudo-existentialist (not to mention that Nietzsce is considered to be the first existentialist).

It being so easily seen that you have referenced your sister for information pertaining to a 'flame' post because you don't possess the philosophical skills, you should put down the comic books every now and then and read something with a bit more substance. Perhaps you could query one of your fantasy novels, you cunning dungeon master you.

As far as self medication; anyone who has had a round of beer brats at your house is subject to (and encouraged) to self medicate before the e. coli poisoning sets in.
 

Nemesis,

Your mistake is definitional. You misunderstand what "ends" means in the context of the "ends justify the means." Ends does not mean consequences, it means "goals." Hence my use of "intention."

Hitler's "ends" was an Aryan rulership over Europe. The consequences were the destruction of Europe and of his regime. But that doesn't change what his ends were.

That is why intention is entirely appropriate when discussing ends and means.

You write:

"For a moral/ethical evaluation actions need to be seperated from there consequences. Intent is an entirely different subject."

Your first sentence is true in so far as it is contradicted by your second sentence. We seperate actions from there consequences by explicitly considering the intention behind the action. Legally, this is the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Furthermore: because it is difficult to envision an invasion of France that does not have a good intention you are probably correct that it is ALWAYS justifiable to invade France.

I brought up evidence because you fired a shot at Minus regarding the subject, yet you argue without using any evidence on a regular basis. You generally rely on deductive arguments, so it seemed funny to attack Minus for not being inductive enough.

One last thing you may be interested in, the 20th century philosopher who was most involved in the study of intentions and the good was an English Catholic named G.E.M. Anscombe. She was also famous for putting the nails into the coffin of Utilitarianism. But Peter Singer is so clever we like to pretend the last 150 years of philosophy did not happen.
 

Minus,

My comment about the relationship of comments to my post was in reference to Varone's comment that is no longer there. It wasn't completely unrelated, and it was funny. But in my experience comments are usually more directly about the original post (which we have lost entirely here, and good riddance.)

My shot at you was justified by your own posts. Read your first shot at Nemesis which is barely coherent, and then read your explanation that is quite lucid. Honestly, the inconsistency leads me to believe that you should not drink and blog.
 

d.w.,

There is certainly a definitional error here-- but the error is not mine. If I'm not mistaken (which I'm not) this debate started over the ends justifying the means. It wasn't over "the goals justifying the means." Any reasonable understanding of the phrase "the ends justify the means" is that "If one does A and B results and B is just, then A is also just." This just isn't a valid position, which was my point.

Implying that no, no ends really means goals is dishonest. It doesn't, and nobody thinks it does.

Also, I need to be clear here that I don't see the "ends" as completely irrelevant. I just don't accept that they necessarily justify the means used in achieving them. In your first post you said they did.
Relying on intent is a sneaky attempt to change the argument.

Lastly, I didn't think it inappropriate to suggest that Minus provide arguments to support his position. You making his arguments for him does not change my position.
 

minus,

Congrats on your research, Camus was an existentialist. And as you no doubt discovered in your google search, the story of Sisyphus is used in describing the futility of (unclaimed) life. But if, again, you read my post you would have seen that I was not using the lesson in that context. Simply placing value on an action in no way implies existentialism.

And since the topic of the day seems to be pseudo, or not genuine, philosophy, lets try this one-- if Nietzsche "questioned the morals and foundations of Christianity" why would that imply Satanism? If anything, since Satan is a Christian device, wouldn't any attack on the moral and logical foundations of Christianity be an equal attack on Satan? Since I have in my past used a Nietzsche quote that qualifies me, in your reasoning, to simultaneously be a Satanic Stratifier and a Christian Bible Thumper. Maybe you can google the duality of man next and give us the skinny on that.

Or better yet, try "GED from home" I really think you could find some useful information.

As much as I appreciate you having brought my sister into the discussion, have I really sunk that low in your opinion that you think I would ask her to help me with a blog argument? I have worked too hard to hide my total loserness from my immediate family to throw it all away on a cocklord comments section.

Lastly, to echo d.w., keep up the good work shooter, looks like you've almost earned a seat at the big boys table. That is, untill you throw out another gem like this:

"Take your pick...it is left open-ended for a reason. It was a catfight at any rate. You are supposed to read about it for the same interesting value that it holds for blogging about it."

Dumbass.
 

Shit, full act of contrition:

I admit to excessive hypocritical prickness in that last post. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

But I still think you're all fuckers.
 

Having chaired the 'big boys' table for some time now, I can say that you have both gone off the deep-end on this one. I might only suggest more research in the respective subjects. The last inductive or conclusive thing that either of you have done is fallen asleep at the wheel of the philosophy bus. Keep up the good work, someday you can figure out finances for good and hopefully find employment at an establishment other than 84 Lumber.

Eifert,

There is no need to apologize to all of cyberspace that you took a 'shot' at me. It feels exciting to call something barely coherent and lucid specifically when you don't understand them, as well as an easy way out. Backpedaling is always a good way out for you, really.

Nemesis,

Where to begin? Ah, yes; try finishing this sentence: "Since I have in my past used a Nietzsche quote that qualifies me, in your reasoning, to simultaneously be a Satanic Stratifier and a Christian Bible Thumper." Little quick on the period key don't you think? Being that Nietzsche thought that Christianity was a burden put on man to cloud the mind with thoughts of another world in order to justify their meager existence in this one, let’s try again shall we? I realize this may be too much for you to grasp, but give it a shot.

Furthermore, Nietzsche felt "the greatest danger for the whole human future, lies with those who say and feel in their hearts: 'We already know what is good and just, we possess it too; woe to those who are still searching for it!'" Weird, that is the attitude of most Satanists! Not to mention that Nietzsche sided with Dionysus against Christ. Having passed high school (much to your dismay, as that is one more 'argument' put to sleep), I can add two and two and logically come to the conclusion and validation of my earlier comments. Like I said: research.
 

There is no court to throw yourself on you muppet. You are an elitist...don't worry, all is not lost.
 

Theres minus, back in good form. Throwing out all sorts of irrelevant information, while completely failing to address the discussion at hand.

Thats great that Nietzsche felt that religion clouded the minds of men into accepting their meager existence. Of course, Nietzsche didn't necessarily see this as a bad thing (as he felt the suffering of the "bungled masses" is no evil), but that is a different discussion.

Its also fine and dandy that some Satanists share some of Nietzsche views. Atheists share a lot of his views too. So do agnostics. So do vets, car mechanics, and baggage handlers. So....what the fuck is your point?

Shit, gotta run. I will complete the post later.
 

I will take the 'shit gotta run' as a 'shit, I don't know how to argue against something that is correct'. That's alright. Being that everything that I have posted is completely relavent to the discussion at hand (as you would like to think that you know something about philosophy), if you need some time off to do some research, feel completely free to do so (just like existentialists)!

I like how you have just cut and pasted what I said in previous posts without addressing any issues at all. Why? Oh, that's right, you can't seem to accept the fact that your logic and reasoning are paltry at best. Keep trying, eventually you will get it.
 

Minus,

I was not backpedaling. I was trying to be polite about the fact that you need to go back to college and take an English Comp class.

Nemesis,

I am not being dishonest. Merriam Webster defines "end" as:

4 a : an outcome worked toward : PURPOSE
b : the object by virtue of or for the sake of which an event takes place

That is what people are talking about when they talk about means and ends.
 

Eifert,

You can justify your mistake in any way that you wish. Your feeble attempt at a justification at this point in the argument just further strengthens my original claim. For that; I salute you airman.
 

You are so being sneaky. Mirriam Webster also defines end as:

2 a : cessation of a course of action, pursuit, or activity b : DEATH, DESTRUCTION c (1) : the ultimate state (2) : RESULT, ISSUE

So while yes, end can be used as the purpose of an action, that is not its meaning in the phrase we are discussing.

"The ends justify the means" is commonly known to mean that the results of an action justify the methods used in attaining them. Whether or not this proposition is valid IS THE DEBATE!!! Fuck.

You're arguing the losing end of a semantic debate. One in which I have completely lost interest.
 

Either that, or you were not afforded additional "'puter" time to finish it.