eurofor

Without being able to decide on policies in a society and without any leadership you wouldn't have less arguments, you would have more. Everyone would be pulling in different directions. Then you would have a conflict. That's not the solution. If you want to prevent certain types of what you see as misuse, it would be a better idea to instead change the political system.

The commercial is for a bank. The message is that everyone can sign up for a severance package i.e. not only the directors and board members, etc. Parachute is used as a metaphor for severance package in Swedish.

Any war that happened was justified to those that participated in it. No need to be specific even. When you say a war was controversial, someone else might disagree. Even if you and others that were not involved do not accept their reasoning it does not change the fact that there are people that think it was justified. So who is right? You think you are right. They think they are right. There is no objective answer. Just subjective answers. Every individual has its own mind and its own ideas. It's inevitable that the ideas of someone at some point collides with the ideas of someone else. And the view that one's own opinion is objectively right and someone else is objectively wrong doesn't exactly prevent conflict (no matter how good you think you are and how evil you think someone else is).

No war happens without a cause and those participating in the war justifies it based on that cause. E.g. both sides consider a geographic area to belong to them and both will do anything to prevent the other one from claiming it. That is their opinion. It is right in their mind because it has to be done for their cause. Someone else may have another opinion, e.g. you that have the opinion that no killing can be justified and all war is wrong. But that is your opinion. What I'm getting at here is that there is no correct answer that is true for everyone. There is no objective right and wrong, it's all subjective. Also. Outlaw religion? That would be outlawing freedom of thought. Outlaw politics? That would result in anarchy.

I know you don't mean it as a conscious thing. I worded it wrong. But why would subjective opinions even be part of the calculation that objectively determines right and wrong if they do not matter? But if nature has rules for what is right and wrong in the interaction between lifeforms, why is it incomplete? Why does it include stealing but not rudeness? In the same way a person expects not to have an item taken as he considers it his possession he also expects another person to be polite and say hello. What is the difference? People in different cultures and religions choose to live their lives differently. Each have ideas that conflict with others but they still consider their own to be "correct". People have a lot of subjective ideas and that is why the world has such diversity. If there was an objective correct answer that could be calculated then that would have more influence over the choices people make.

Saying that all are valued exactly zero is still implying that there is an objective perspective from which they are valued and such a perspective does not exist. You are using this as the foundation of your theory that nature knows what is right and wrong in the interaction between individuals and I insist that it is not so. Why does that make them pointless? The perception of rights only matter in the interaction between individuals where subjectivity is always present. It does not need to matter in a context that doesn't include any individuals. As I said the justification is subjective. Something cannot be objectively justified. It would only be justified to those individuals that are convinced that it is right in their subjective opinion.

90's Swedish TV commercial:

So who determines who is right and who is wrong? There is no equation you can use to get the answer. Equal when? Each individual has a his/her own personal (subjective) opinion on which view is right or wrong. There is no external perspective from which all views are always equal. By "someone" I don't necessarily mean someone else has to acknowledge a right. It's enough with the individual itself that claims to have the right. So tell me why the UN has set up a document specifying the human rights and not a document specifying the laws of physics? Why would it need a document that needs to be signed by all countries if it's part of nature and cannot be questioned? Rights do not need to be objective to be respected. Humans are full of subjectivity to cover for any lack off objectivity. Yes. I think most can understand basic logic, yes. No (as I said previously, there exists no perspective from which all are always equal). No, any value put on the ideas would be by those individuals exposed to them and they would rank them by their own subjective opinion. There is no external perspective where they are always equal. No offence but I don't think you do. Anything can be justified if someone is of the opinion that it is right. What's your definition of logic? Logic can be as simple as "is there food? if yes, then I will eat. if no, then I must look for food" and probably any living organism is capable of making some type of decision.

I think you may be confused by your attraction to the plane itself. There's definitely a pair of manly eyebrows in that screenshot.

But you cannot conclude whether a digit is correct or not in a discussion based on opinion because that is not a matter of opinion. Mathematics is part of nature. It exists and gives the same result regardless of anyone's opinion. Morals are dependent on opinions and can't exist without someone having an opinion. It is what the observers say it is. It only matters to those that observe it. There is no objective answer but ask people and you will get different subjective answers. Again, there is no objective right and wrong. In someone's opinion anything may right or wrong. Someone else's opinion may the opposite. There is no way to objectively say one is right and the other one is wrong. The existence of rights (and obligations) is dependent on people's opinions. Someone has to accept and respect those rights for them to exist. They do not exist independently of people's opinions. So to determine if a right is being violated one must first determine if there is a right and that can only be done subjectively. Therefore one can only subjectively determine if there is a violation which basically means you can only determine if it's right or wrong subjectively. Say there is no life on earth. A rock in free fall would according to the laws of physics accelerate because of gravity until the resistance of the atmosphere stops it from accelerating. That is mathematics at work. It would always be the same regardless of anyone's opinion. Let's make this more abstract. Imagine a lifeform as a blob of matter in the same way a rock is a blob of matter. The only thing that would make them different is the lifeform's view on itself as it can consider itself to have a right that the rock does not have. For that it is required to have an opinion. Nature does not give it a right. The rock does not have an opinion so it does not respect the right that the lifeform considers itself to have. The rock cannot know about it because the concepts of rights and morals exist inside the mind of the lifeform, not as a law of nature. It is subjective. Mathematics applies to the rock as well because that is objective. So in your opinion there is a nature's law of morality? If you look at the world do you observe all lifeforms adhering to this supposed law without exceptions?

Take this example. If there was no people left on earth, would there still be a right and wrong? Because if so, that would be objective. But there can't be because it is subjective and there would be no one to judge what is right and wrong.

It's up to any society to decide how they want to establish the laws. Like in a democracy we vote for politicians that promise varying levels of harsh punishments for things that we wouldn't want to be exposed to. Subjectively it matters to people affected or even the society as a whole and they will act. The brainwashed person is wrong? Maybe I should define what I mean with brainwashing, I include culture and religion in that. So do you want to claim that your specific culture or religion is right and everyone else is wrong? So you're saying one is objectively right and the other one is objectively wrong? Would you apply that logic on any two people of different opinions?

What I think is subjective therefore I can apply the concept of right and wrong. But that is just my opinion. Someone else might have another opinion. What I think you're trying to get to is if there is an objective right and wrong regardless of anyone's opinion which there is not. Because that is my opinion and my opinion is subjective. How could anyone justify something objectively? The justification would be subjective. What decides jail is the appropriate means to get justice? And how many days/months/years of it? People's opinions decide that and that is subjective. Exactly. Don't you know the expression "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Right and wrong is subjective. Objectively there is no right and wrong. The killing that I think is wrong I call murder. The taking that I think is wrong I call stealing. To be honest I think the whole discussion of where the line between right and wrong is misses the point if it is not inside a subjective context because those concepts simply do not exist objectively. Human morals are affected by culture/religion/etc. Name one thing you would say is absolutely wrong and I bet a person could be brainwashed into think that is right. Justice and injustice are concepts that are subjectively perceived. Why must it be objective to be meaningful? It is not pointless to those individuals whom it affects.

The terms killing and stealing can't be compared like that. Kill is neutral, take would also be neutral. Murder and steal are subjective.

Fighting in the first place is risking your life for a cause. Where do you draw the line?

The most loyal customers will get a number to look at until it disappears again. :thumbup:

I may be wrong but the way it's attached it looks like it might fold up so perhaps that is something that hasn't been implemented yet. But anyway it would be nice to not have it when there are no weapon mounts.

Airbus stream from Farnborough. A400M at 29:17.

Falcon 9 launch (Orbcomm OG2 satellites)

New Russian Angara rocket suborbital test launch

It's good that the kickstarter was a joke from the very beginning, otherwise I would have gotten into this mess.

Dora, until the Kurfürst is released :joystick:

Have you tried selecting Ukraine as country? It is already in. http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=95108&d=1394107155