Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AWDstylez]

    I want you to explain why words can be morally wrong, and why people become offended when they hear these words.  I also want to know why saying these words on the internet, where they're published for millions to access is different than using them in a physical location where the maximum audience that can view or hear the curse word(s) in question comes no where near to what one would access through publishing them on the internet.  

   This is something I consider as being completely irrelevant to morality, and the only case I can see being made about it is a psychological egoist case stating that one ought to not use certain words because some people are offended by it so it may reflect back on your own interests negatively, but that doesn't explain why the people are offended. Just because someone is offended by a set of actions doesn't make it morally incorrect.  Trust me, you don't want to go that direction in your counterargument.


Personally, since words convey concepts and I see no reason to limit their use.  If you're embarrassed to teach your kid a word because you fear the concept it conveys, you need to get over that.  Your child doesn't benefit from you shielding them from learning different concepts, even negative and degrading ones. How is a person supposed to develop an ethical system if they are to know nothing about the essence of what is unethical?

  I know I should stay out of these threads, but I never thought I'd see the day when anyone argued against swearing on rhmt.

...between this and the free will thread, when did you become a fucking philosopher?

[AWDstylez]

Ok. So you're saying because a majority of people agree on something that it makes it morally applicable?  I don't buy that.  That's called cultural relativism and that's fairly easy to make a case against. I can make several cases for things that you think is correct but you can prove that the majority doesn't hold those values and that the majority of the population may actually be incorrect in holding those values.

I want to know why the words are obscene and why humans should be offended by them.  If you can't make a case for it, every point you're making now is irrelevant.  

I also don't buy that you know who's going to visit here. My five year old little brother is frequently in the room when I'm browsing RHMT, but we're not worried about shielding him from concepts.

He never said the words themselves are innately wrong, so you're strawmaning the living shit out of his argument.  

Also, "words" being offensive has nothing to do with cultural relativism.  Again, he's talking about being offesive, not about innately unethical words.  Being offensive in the situation he's talking about is unethical and if you want to be a bitch about it I'll go through ever major theory of philosophy and show you how.  The words themselves are amoral, it's people's perceptions of the words that make using discresion with them an ethical necessity.  You're trying to pull some third grade "it's just a sound wave" bullshit to justify something our society has determined to be offesive and improper.  The argument against moral relativism doesn't apply to etiquette, go back and read chapter one.  When in Rome do as the Romans...

[AWDstylez]

For a word to be genuinely offensive, stating the word is going to have to be immoral in itself, or there's not going to be a reason why it's relevant or should be honored other than what I have previously stated.

You're completely wrong. 

What is offensive and what is not is a matter of etiquette, not a matter of ethics.  Etiquette is based on society's perceptions, that implies a majory opinion.  You still following?  This society says cussing is offensive and/or something that should be restricted.  That is a matter of this society's rules on etiquette, nothing more.  The ethical issue is whether it is ethical to break etiquette or not.  In this case it is not. 

You need to separate the etiquette issues and ethical issues.

[Joseph Davis]

     I want you to explain why words can be morally wrong, and why people become offended when they hear these words.  I also want to know why saying these words on the internet, where they're published for millions to access is different than using them in a physical location where the maximum audience that can view or hear the curse word(s) in question comes no where near to what one would access through publishing them on the internet. 

   This is something I consider as being completely irrelevant to morality, and the only case I can see being made about it is a psychological egoist case stating that one ought to not use certain words because some people are offended by it so it may reflect back on your own interests negatively, but that doesn't explain why the people are offended. Just because someone is offended by a set of actions doesn't make it morally incorrect.  Trust me, you don't want to go that direction in your counterargument.


Personally, since words convey concepts and I see no reason to limit their use.  If you're embarrassed to teach your kid a word because you fear the concept it conveys, you need to get over that.  Your child doesn't benefit from you shielding them from learning different concepts, even negative and degrading ones. How is a person supposed to develop an ethical system if they are to know nothing about the essence of what is unethical?

  I know I should stay out of these threads, but I never thought I'd see the day when anyone argued against swearing on rhmt.

...between this and the free will thread, when did you become a fucking philosopher?

That's what he's going to school for, dude.

You better back the fuck off or he'll use his exclusive xor on you.  Nobody here wants to see you get that fucked up.

[Conceptz-X]

You better back the fuck off or he'll use his exclusive xor on you.  Nobody here wants to see you get that fucked up.

lol

[QikEnuF]

Rawr will rape your nostrils

[AWDstylez]

That's what he's going to school for, dude.

Must have just finished his intro class then.

[Joseph Davis]

Looks like intro class is all he needed.

[AWDstylez]

Looks like intro class is all he needed.

I'd just stick to the tuning thing if I were you.

[hotrex]

i smell alot of rank pussy in this thread

[AWDstylez]

You need to make sure you have a grasp of my argument before you critique it, because you're completely off base with the points that I'm making.  I'm arguing against the relevance of the subset of etiquette that is swearing due to it not having any ethical basis.  You're also making an allowance for frivolous language by supporting his argument since words like "offensive", which suggest that an action is immoral enough to be an obscenity, were introduced by him, and that was one of the principles I was arguing against which would be apparent if you'd thoroughly read what I've stated.


Furthermore, giving merit, even when it comes to etiquette to something that's based off societies opinions and is customary within that society is a relativist outlook and is inherently bound to ethics as it defines what one ought and ought not do. 

I understand your argument perfectly and I'm telling you that you're wrong.  You need to separate etiquette from ethics.  You're trying to prove a point by talking over his head, strawmaning like no other, and sounding fancy.  It's that attitude that makes me think you just walked out of intro to philosophy.

The bottom line is simple.  Cussing in public is poor etiquette in our society.  That makes it improper and offensive.  This is the only point he was trying to make, regardless of how poorly he worded it. Whether you believe it crosses the line into the land of the unethical (and that case can definitely be made in this particular situation) is your own opinion, which, like all opinions, is irrelevant to the arugment.

[Joseph Davis]

Looks like intro class is all he needed.

I'd just stick to the tuning thing if I were you.

Speaking of which, do you know anything about cars?  At all?  Are you sure you wouldn't be more at home on a whiny political forum?

[AWDstylez]

Looks like intro class is all he needed.

I'd just stick to the tuning thing if I were you.

Speaking of which, do you know anything about cars?  At all?  Are you sure you wouldn't be more at home on a whiny political forum?

Aside from you I'm the only person here that wasn't stupid enough to say that inertia dynos measure torque.  Is that a start?  I'm not the Yoda of t0000ning like yourself (or anything close), but my tech knowledge is well beyond that of people that think they know something.

[bluerex]

NCC Video

[Joseph Davis]

Looks like intro class is all he needed.

I'd just stick to the tuning thing if I were you.

Speaking of which, do you know anything about cars?  At all?  Are you sure you wouldn't be more at home on a whiny political forum?

Aside from you I'm the only person here that wasn't stupid enough to say that inertia dynos measure torque.  Is that a start?  I'm not the Yoda of t0000ning like yourself (or anything close), but my tech knowledge is well beyond that of people that think they know something.

You are a fucking idiot who needs to shut up about cars, and find a faggot political forum to blab your ignorance about.

Inertia dynos measure torque just as easily as horsepower.  Horsepower and torque (vs rpm)  are mathematical functions of each other, you can not measure one without measuring the other.  If you really think a load cell is all that accurate, or precise, compared to an inertia drum you're an idiot.  A load cell is great for doing part throttles (so is a water brake), but it's reading deteriorates over time unlike the acceleration of a heavy drum.

[DmC]

Awdstylze is like Complex but with an additude problem.

[Adam Lofton]

What would McCain do............? 

[Joseph Davis]

I'd love for Tyler to bring some math, or physics, into this discussion.  I tear through functional innumerates like Calebs tears through philosophical relativists.

[Conceptz-X]

If you really think a load cell is all that accurate, or precise, compared to an inertia drum you're an idiot.  A load cell is great for doing part throttles (so is a water brake), but it's reading deteriorates over time unlike the acceleration of a heavy drum.

Truth!  Inertia dyno will be more consistant. 

Dyno's should not be used to brag, they are for R&D so that you can evaluate changes you have made.  Shit varries too damn much between them.  If everybody used the same dyno, you can brag, untill then, realize readings are never right and all they are good for is to evaluate current tune and configuration vs. previous tune and configuration.  Do not use 3 different dyno's and think one tuner is nessarily better than another or you made more power cuz you put on a new sticker.

What would McCain do............? 

X infinity

[Ntrain2k]

and if something i say offends someone then yes, tough shit. im not going to act different in public just because something i say MIGHT offend someone, but i do make it a point to not say it around kids

I'm glad to hear that, being that I have kids and don't appreciate shit like that around them.

[Conceptz-X]

and if something i say offends someone then yes, tough shit. im not going to act different in public just because something i say MIGHT offend someone, but i do make it a point to not say it around kids

I'm glad to hear that, being that I have kids and don't appreciate shit like that around them.

I try, but it slips sometimes

[random-strike]

my cats breath smells like cat food

[Conceptz-X]

if it didnt I'd be worried

[AWDstylez]

You need to make sure you have a grasp of my argument before you critique it, because you're completely off base with the points that I'm making.  I'm arguing against the relevance of the subset of etiquette that is swearing due to it not having any ethical basis.  You're also making an allowance for frivolous language by supporting his argument since words like "offensive", which suggest that an action is immoral enough to be an obscenity, were introduced by him, and that was one of the principles I was arguing against which would be apparent if you'd thoroughly read what I've stated.


Furthermore, giving merit, even when it comes to etiquette to something that's based off societies opinions and is customary within that society is a relativist outlook and is inherently bound to ethics as it defines what one ought and ought not do. 

I understand your argument perfectly and I'm telling you that you're wrong.  You need to separate etiquette from ethics.  You're trying to prove a point by talking over his head, strawmaning like no other, and sounding fancy.  It's that attitude that makes me think you just walked out of intro to philosophy.

The bottom line is simple.  Cussing in public is poor etiquette in our society.  That makes it improper and offensive.  This is the only point he was trying to make, regardless of how poorly he worded it. Whether you believe it crosses the line into the land of the unethical (and that case can definitely be made in this particular situation) is your own opinion, which, like all opinions, is irrelevant to the arugment.

I'm done arguing with you since you cant seem to do so in a way that's conductive and comes to a point.  You don't address any of the premises I introduce, you revert to personal insults, and you also keep reverting to thinking something is true because you stated it.  That's not the case. If you wan't to make your point against me, please make an effort to explain as to why I'm incorrect and why you are correct.  Telling me I'm wrong is severely insufficient.

Kind of an ironic statement, wouldn't you say?  I bolded the part you missed.  Sucks when you can't just talk over people's heads, huh?  Your "premises" are based on bullshit, that's the problem.  I'm addressing the basis of your premises, rather than taking your word for it on them and arguing from there as you'd like me to do.  Like I said, sucks when the playing field is level, makes it hard to create your own rules to play by.

Ethics is one thing, etiquette is another.  That's the first problem you have.  Your second problem is that your arugment boils down to, "words are amoral, therefore he shouldn't be offended."  Your third problem is that you aren't comprehending that no one is saying words AREN'T amoral.  No one is arguing whether the words themselves are inherently unethical.  What's being arguing is whether using the words in public is correct ETIQUETTE.  Ethics has nothing to do with it yet.  Once you can comprehend the position and what is and isn't being stated, then we can move on the ETHICAL issues of the situation (not the words themselves).

[AWDstylez]

You are a fucking idiot who needs to shut up about cars, and find a faggot political forum to blab your ignorance about.

Inertia dynos measure torque just as easily as horsepower.  Horsepower and torque (vs rpm)  are mathematical functions of each other, you can not measure one without measuring the other.  If you really think a load cell is all that accurate, or precise, compared to an inertia drum you're an idiot.  A load cell is great for doing part throttles (so is a water brake), but it's reading deteriorates over time unlike the acceleration of a heavy drum.

What the fuck are you talking about?  The default function of dynojets is to read HP.  Acceleration of a known mass... ring a bell?  That gives a work measurement, i.e. power, convert to force, i.e. torque... ring another bell?  That's all I said.  Strawman away about the accuracy of measuring techniques, I never touched it.

[Conceptz-X]

ROFLOL ;D

[random-strike]

A dynamometer or "dyno" for short, is a machine used to measure torque and rotational speed (rpm) from which power produced by an engine, motor or other rotating prime mover can be calculated.

[Joseph Davis]

You are a fucking idiot who needs to shut up about cars, and find a faggot political forum to blab your ignorance about.

Inertia dynos measure torque just as easily as horsepower.  Horsepower and torque (vs rpm)  are mathematical functions of each other, you can not measure one without measuring the other.  If you really think a load cell is all that accurate, or precise, compared to an inertia drum you're an idiot.  A load cell is great for doing part throttles (so is a water brake), but it's reading deteriorates over time unlike the acceleration of a heavy drum.

What the fuck are you talking about?  The default function of dynojets is to read HP.  Acceleration of a known mass... ring a bell?  That gives a work measurement, i.e. power, convert to force, i.e. torque... ring another bell?  That's all I said.  Strawman away about the accuracy of measuring techniques, I never touched it.

What do you know?  What does a Dynojunk software default have to do with anything?  Using a dynamometer whose designer admits to fudging numbers because he didn't think the unit read high enough on a shitty 80s motorcycle lends zero creedence to your arguments.  Forget whatever you were told on HT or EM or one of the several automotive forums you go to discuss politics with intellectual gimps.

An inertial dynamometer measures how long it takes a given engine to accelerate a known rotational inertia, resulting in a TORQUE measurement. The relationship for rotational motion is; TORQUE (t) = rotational inertia (I) times angular acceleration (a), or t = I * a

Rotational inertia (I) is expressed as mass (m) divided by two (2) and then multiplied by the square (²) of the drum's radius (r).  As such:  I = m/(2 * r²)

Angular acceleration is simply the change in angular velocity, w, over time, t, as so: a = Dw / Dt

An inertia dyno reads TORQUE.  Any horsepower calculation is a derivative of the dyno's primary function of reading TORQUE.  Further, horsepower is a bullshit measurement to relate to dumb ditch digging hicks how many actual eats-hay-and-shits horses a given engine would replace over 100 years ago.  It's a tard measurement, meant for communicating with tards about things they do not understand, and if a Dynojet defaults to it then I guess that sums what a Dynojet is good for.  Plug and chug, Tyler, it's simple high school physics.


Also, if I wish to discuss how strain gauges are not repeatable and deteriorate over time in a post discussing the strengths/weaknesses of dynos I shall do so and you can STFU and listen, as you obviously know NOTHING about the subject (or any automotive related subject) and your place is to shut the fuck up and stop interfering with the knowledge pouring into your tiny pin head.  When I am finished speaking you may ask specific questions, and I will answer them if it is obvious from the nature of your question that you have paid attention and are not wasting my time with your stupidity.

[AWDstylez]

The fact that something is a rule of etiquette is not adequate justification for being bound to that rule. That's considered rule warship.

That's why you're STILL missing the point.  No one is bound by anything because it's a matter of ETIQUETTE, not ethics.  Etiquette IS relative.  Proper etiquette varies by region and culture.  Again, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.  Etiquette doesn't need to be grounded in anything because no one (except you, because you're so hung up on it) is arguing for the universal truth or rightness of rules of etiquette.  I'm speaking in relation to our society only.  Etiquette can be as trivial as using the correct spoons for soup and salad at a formal dinner.  There is no solid foundation in ethics for that rule, but it is etiquette nonetheless.  You don't have to agree with the rules, you don't have to like the rules, and the rules don't even have to make sense to you.  All that matters is that when you break the rules, people get pissed off.  The rules themselves are not an ethical code and are not ethically founded, but they exist.

Now let me really spell this out for your intro level ass in regard to the example being discussed.

The fact that wearing a shirt with "TWAT" on it in public is poor etiquette in our society has already been established.

The jackass's failure to follow the etiquette rules in this case led to 97's mother being offended and put off, which is to be expected because that's exactly what the etiquette rules are designed to prevent.

It follows pretty simply (when you get above phil101) that biker douchebag failed in his duty to respect persons by offending an innocent lady with his failure to follow soceity's code of etiquette.

We have three issues here now.  You aren't understanding because you're lumping them into one.

Issue #1:  Biker wearing a shirt that says TWAT.
This issues DOES NOT break any rules of ethics.
This issues DOES NOT break any rules of etiquette.

Issue #2:  Biker wearing a shirt that says TWAT in public.
This issue DOES NOT break any rules of ethics.
This issue DOES break the rules of etiquette.

Issues #3: Biker's actions offend and inconvience 97's mother, thus failing to properly respect her.
This DOES break the rules of ethics.
This issue DOES break the rules of etiquette.

Are you understanding it now that it's broken down elementary style?

The last time I checked, Kant said good is created when people do what they ought to do, rather than what they want to do.  He was also all about respect for persons and the inherent good in actions.

Although there is nothing inherently, ethically wrong with the word TWAT, and the biker is bound by no ethical rule that says he cannot wear the shirt in public, he OUGHT to have some repect for the people that are sensitive to the rules of etiquette.  He has a duty to respect his fellow man, and that includes not having a "if they don't like it, fuck 'em" attitude.



You're biggest problem is that you cannot get over the idea that the nature of the word TWAT and rules of etiquette are not universal constants.  You can't seem to grasp that I'm not trying to make a case for the universal rightness of our society's rules of etiquette.  Honestly, I couldn't give two shits whether our rules of etiquette are ethically founded and universally applicable, because that not what I'm arguing.  I'm arguing them in the context of only our own society, only in this particular case, and in the way in which they effect people.  Once you get past the mind fuck that comes with the intro class and the feeling of knowing it all, and you come back to normal people land you'll be able to think clearly, less arrogantly, and less abstractly.

[AWDstylez]

An inertial dynamometer measures how long it takes a given engine to accelerate a known rotational inertia, resulting in a TORQUE measurement.

Ok you got me, you bald bitch. 

But you're still a nigger that surrounds yourself with idiots in order to feel smart.  If you want to demonstrate that I'm one of the idiots, it might make you feel better, but it's only proving my point.