Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

[3hands]

when will you finally, at last, close this useless, shit stirring, and nasty wokefest thread ????

Wokefest. Wokefest. In what kind of post social-media wankerage hell, should such a lame, lazy, sad-ass word even exist?

Wokefest.

Good grief. That's annoyed me more than all the rest of this pox of a thread ( to which I feel I have usefully contributed!).

I feel a stiff letter to the editor coming on, using words only found in Chambers Etymological Dictionary.

Haha!

Dear Mr Muff...

[kons]

Dear Mr. Muff. Sir
I didn't fight and die in two world wars just so people could run around holding wokefests....

[Flounderguts]

I hope the millenials around here are having giggles watching us mangle their words.

[Zymos]

Dear Mr. Muff,
I must object in the strongest possible terms to your allowing this despicable wokefest to continue in your area of the aethers. If you do not immediately desist, I’ll be forced to take actions that may well reflect poorly on both of us.
Yours sincerely,
Zymos, Esq

[3hands]

I hope they are too....


Because this is fantastic!

[Dr. Sketch-n-Etch]

dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.

[dubonaire]

dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.

Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.

[Blairio]

dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.

Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.

Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.

[Licudi]

Needs a remix. Not enough existential angst.

[strettara]

From Uli's naughty to the heat death of the universe. Now that's a conversation

[dubonaire]

From Uli's naughty to the heat death of the universe. Now that's a conversation

No it's not.

By the way, it's not heat death of the universe, which may or may not be inevitable, that the Dr is talking about, it's the Sun exiting its main sequence, estimated to occur in approximately 5 billion years, when it will likely start to turn into a red giant which may or may not engulf the earth but will probably end things anyway, which is also a moot point, because as the Dr alludes too, we humans will outdo the sun as (sentient) "Death, the destroyer of worlds". Heat death comes much later, if you think time is a thing.

[strettara]

Thanks, I just won ten quid on a bet I had with myself that you’d correct me.

Come to think of it though, I also lost... dammit!

[KSS]

@strettara
But who else could you get to take that bet?

[dubonaire]

dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.

Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.

Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.

Not in the strange vernacular of philosophy.

[dubonaire]

Thanks, I just won ten quid on a bet I had with myself that you’d correct me.

Come to think of it though, I also lost... dammit!

I’m so predictable.

[galanter2]

dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.

Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.

Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.

Not in the strange vernacular of philosophy.

Are you sure? Please cite a philosopher who equates intent with the ability to reason.

[sduck]

Thanks, I just won ten quid on a bet I had with myself that you’d correct me.

Come to think of it though, I also lost... dammit!

I’m so predictable.

No you're not.

[dubonaire]

dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.

Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.

Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.

Not in the strange vernacular of philosophy.

Are you sure? Please cite a philosopher who equates intent with the ability to reason.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/

[galanter2]

dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.

Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.

Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.

Not in the strange vernacular of philosophy.

Are you sure? Please cite a philosopher who equates intent with the ability to reason.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/

Yes, I'm aware of the special notions of intentionality in philosophy. But I've not seen it as a reference to the ability to reason. And I don't see where this article equates intent with the ability to reason.

In a moral philosophy setting, intention can refer to something more like the common meaning. If you accidentally hit someone with your car, that's morally different than if you pick them out and aim your car at them. In moral philosophy that kind of everyday intention matters. And most people understand, and in fact even some animals seem to understand, the difference between an unintended act and an intentional act.

But it's entirely possible in cases of moral philosophy to have an act that is fully intended but highly irrational. Surely you've encountered this in life.

But there is also intentionality as discussed here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cons ... tionality/

In philosophy of mind intentionality has an unusual meaning. It's about mental representation, and simply refers to the way our thoughts correspond to objects or events in the world. This is something most of us take for granted and don't have a particular word for. But in order to talk about the way mental events/objects correspond to real world events/objects, philosophers have overloaded the word "intentionality" with this new meaning.

But that's not the same as a reference to the ability to reason.

[htor]

guys, guys, get a room

[dubonaire]

dubonaire, I wasn't arguing that, because the earth is going to end anyway, there is no need for morality. I was just pointing out that if we destroy the earth (or harm it a lot) due to our selfishness and/or carelessness, that this is immoral, whereas when the sun expands to engulf the earth, this is not immoral. The earth is harmed either way. Morality/immorality is thus a matter of perception.

Aah OK got it. Sorry for misunderstanding. I don't agree with your logic though. I think the common element in your thesis is intent, or lack of it, or put more simply, the ability to reason.

Intent and Reason are quite different. Intent is an aim or a plan (requiring will to implement), while reason in this context is the ability to understand.

Not in the strange vernacular of philosophy.

Are you sure? Please cite a philosopher who equates intent with the ability to reason.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intention/

Yes, I'm aware of the special notions of intentionality in philosophy. But I've not seen it as a reference to the ability to reason. And I don't see where this article equates intent with the ability to reason.

In a moral philosophy setting, intention can refer to something more like the common meaning. If you accidentally hit someone with your car, that's morally different than if you pick them out and aim your car at them. In moral philosophy that kind of everyday intention matters. And most people understand, and in fact even some animals seem to understand, the difference between an unintended act and an intentional act.

But it's entirely possible in cases of moral philosophy to have an act that is fully intended but highly irrational. Surely you've encountered this in life.

But there is also intentionality as discussed here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cons ... tionality/

In philosophy of mind intentionality has an unusual meaning. It's about mental representation, and simply refers to the way our thoughts correspond to objects or events in the world. This is something most of us take for granted and don't have a particular word for. But in order to talk about the way mental events/objects correspond to real world events/objects, philosophers have overloaded the word "intentionality" with this new meaning.

But that's not the same as a reference to the ability to reason.

I have no desire to argue with you about this.

[grizzleb]

Lol

[Orange]

[strettara]

At this point Behringer is just trolling the whole fartsniffing vintage goodness crowd It’s performance art for the nerdiest nerds in nerdland.

[3hands]

At this point Behringer is just trolling the whole fartsniffing vintage goodness crowd It’s performance art for the nerdiest nerds in nerdland.

Haha I was having a discussion with someone about this, and this very thing came up. If it’s true, it’s epic.