A discussion on TFES forum

[teo123]

When you can understand and explain to me the difference in somebody claiming to have been on an airplane, and having flown on a dragon, I can explain the science to you. If you can't understand that, then there's no point in going into the science.

Why would I have to study philosophy to be able to understand what you claim is basic physics?

[brimstoneSalad]

When you can understand and explain to me the difference in somebody claiming to have been on an airplane, and having flown on a dragon, I can explain the science to you. If you can't understand that, then there's no point in going into the science.

Why would I have to study philosophy to be able to understand what you claim is basic physics?

It's a difference in what you want to learn, and what you need to learn.

Give a man wheat, feed him for a day, teach him to sow, feed him for a lifetime.

[EquALLity]

He probably should have punched you in the face, and then never spoken to you again. It was unacceptable for you to doubt his honesty of having been on an airplane: somebody who calls you a liar to your face (as you did to him) is not likely somebody you can converse with.

Um...

Are you serious? He SHOULD HAVE punched him in the face?

I see, this is why you aren't opposed to Donald Trump's violent rhetoric...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU

That reaction was appropriate, and the courts agreed.

That reaction was wrong, and the only reason why it perhaps should be legal is to prevent intentional provacation (like we discussed awhile back in that topic about gay people and cakes). Just because something should be legal doesn't make it moral.

Hitting a person for accusing you of being a liar is violent vengeance. The person is just being rude; there's no actual physical threat, so self-defense is not an applicable justification.

All it is is assaulting a person for offending you... Aren't you anti-PC?

I mean... You're literally advocating for unecessary violence here out of revenge.
You can't justify revenge morally.

[brimstoneSalad]

That reaction was wrong, and the only reason why it perhaps should be legal is to prevent intentional provacation (like we discussed awhile back in that topic about gay people and cakes). Just because something should be legal doesn't make it moral.

How do you figure?

Some things should not be criminalized, because the act of criminalizing produces more harm -- like creating black markets, and begetting more crime.

Things like this aren't at all like that. The risk of being punched in the face (which means in actuality that people are sometimes punched in the face) is discouraging intentional provocation, thus an occasional punch in the face (in appropriate situations like this) may do more good than harm by discouraging that behavior.

It's the same thing we see with crime and punishment. IF the death penalty acted as a deterrent, then it could be argued to be a social good (even if in that particular case it's harmful).

Hitting a person for accusing you of being a liar is violent vengeance. The person is just being rude; there's no actual physical threat, so self-defense is not an applicable justification.

When somebody calls you a liar to your face like that, or what teo did (which is distinct from somebody telling others that you are a liar, or shaming on a public stage), that is so unlikely to be productive in any way: ALL it is is provocation.
The public claim that somebody is a liar is free speech, to an extent. There is still libel and slander, and those are important laws which help keep people from lying about others to destroy their reputations (which are of moral significance).
Just provoking people probably holds little to no utility in terms of freedom of expression.

All it is is assaulting a person for offending you... Aren't you anti-PC?

In a one on one conversation, there's a difference between disagreeing with a person's perspective or ideas, saying the person is mistaken, lying to his or herself/being intellectually dishonest/succumbing to bias or delusion, or offending an ideology, and outright saying that person specifically is being intentionally dishonest (to that person) which is one of the most useless things that can be said. If you think the person agrees with you and is just lying for some reason, why have the conversation? There's no reason other than provocation.
In a public context we can talk about the utility of shaming, and in those cases it's very possible people are lying -- and it can be useful if you catch somebody in a contradiction and can demonstrate it -- but one on one, calling somebody a liar has a very tenuous link to free speech, if any at all.

I mean... You're literally advocating for unecessary violence here out of revenge.
You can't justify revenge morally.

It's not necessarily revenge, but revenge itself can be justified morally if it is proportional and serves social utility. As you said at the beginning: like to prevent deliberate provocation.
If you get punched in the face for behaving that badly, then perhaps it will discourage that unproductive behavior in the future.

[teo123]

I don't know now, I think I did the right thing. Seriously, what's the difference between the claim that you have been on an airplane and the claim that you have flown a dragon? To someone who has never seen neither an airplane nor a dragon, like myself, both claims are extraordinary. If he wants me to believe he was either on an airplane or on a dragon, he should provide some evidence (like some reasonable explanation of how the airplanes work) and he didn't. You may say that it's a scientific consensus that the airplanes exist, but if this thread has shown us anything, that's that if you try to believe in scientific consensus, you are way more likely to misunderstand it and believe nonsense than to believe the truth. Airplanes probably exist, and whether or not they exist is irrelevant to this discussion.
And why do you think people are so unlikely to be in a conspiracy? Because you feel bad when you lie? Well, you feel bad when you eat something someone had to be killed for you to eat, yet most of the people do that.
I know I hurt his feelings, but, as far as I can tell, you don't care about not hurting someone's feelings, so why should I care?

[Jebus]

You're literally advocating for unecessary violence here out of revenge.
You can't justify revenge morally.

Not that I think revenge is the appropriate term here but I could easily justify this action morally. In behavioral psychology, a person's action is apt to repeat itself if being rewarded, whereas a person's action is less likely to repeat itself if it is followed by some type of punishment. A punch in the face is a pretty strong type of punishment. I never respected people who ignore people who are behaving badly as they do nothing to improve the total sum of human behavior. Look in to operant conditioning if you want to learn more.

[teo123]

You're literally advocating for unecessary violence here out of revenge.
You can't justify revenge morally.

Not that I think revenge is the appropriate term here but I could easily justify this action morally. In behavioral psychology, a person's action is apt to repeat itself if being rewarded, whereas a person's action is less likely to repeat itself if it is followed by some type of punishment. A punch in the face is a pretty strong type of punishment. I never respected people who ignore people who are behaving badly as they do nothing to improve the total sum of human behavior. Look in to operant conditioning if you want to learn more.

And what's your justification for forcing your beliefs upon others by operant conditioning? You are just as likely to be wrong as anyone else is.

[Jebus]

And what's your justification for forcing your beliefs upon others by operant conditioning? You are just as likely to be wrong as anyone else is.

Do you think everyone is equally likely to be wrong? That's pretty ridiculous.

Have you seen "A Clockwork Orange." That's forced conditioning (classical conditioning). I've never done that and don't know anyone who has.

In this case, Buzz Aldrin was the acting agent and most people (including myself) agreed that his action was justified. Hence, he was most likely rewarded for his action and a similar action is more likely to reoccur under similar circumstances. If I were wrong (as you suggest may be the case) I would most probably receive some type of stimulus that would decrease the chance of me repeating my action. This is the great thing about behavioral conditioning.

[teo123]

Do you think everyone is equally likely to be wrong? That's pretty ridiculous.

Basically yes. Ignorance more often brings confidence than knowledge does. And if you are so confident to think you are justified to force your beliefs on others, you are likely to simply be ignorant.

Have you seen "A Clockwork Orange." That's forced conditioning (classical conditioning). I've never done that and don't know anyone who has.In this case, Buzz Aldrin was the acting agent and most people (including myself) agreed that his action was justified. Hence, he was most likely rewarded for his action and a similar action is more likely to reoccur under similar circumstances. If I were wrong (as you suggest may be the case) I would most probably receive some type of stimulus that would decrease the chance of me repeating my action. This is the great thing about behavioral conditioning.

I'd imagine that meat-eaters think that way.

[Jebus]

Ignorance more often brings confidence than knowledge does.

More often? I doubt that's true. Please show me the research.

And if you are so confident to think you are justified to force your beliefs on others, you are likely to simply be ignorant.

Are you speaking to me now? If so when did I force my belief on to others?

I'd imagine that meat-eaters think that way.

You'de imagine that meat eaters speak what way? Please be more clear in your posts. I suggest when quoting someone you try to shorten down the quote as much as possible so that people understand what you are referring to.