Conversation stopping stupid indeed.
That's funny. When I look up fairness, I get
"impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination."
Whoa! Conflict. What do you do when there are two slightly different definitions?!
The salient points remain. One, the only reason anyone discusses fairness is moral. People demand fairness, and debate whether or not things are or aren't fair, for moral reasons. People put moral stock in the concept of fairness. Two, the universe does not qualify as impartial in the only context in which such a thing is practically meaningful, as I already explained (but you didn't respond it).
It's all relative to the set of imposed rules, which can be anything you or anyone wants them to be.
Well, no, not if the rules we're talking about are the laws of physics, which is what you're insisting on. But if you're saying that we can choose which rules we follow, then at the moment I would think you're undermining your own position, as you'd basically be letting on to the fact that the laws of physics are not the primary rules we are going by, that the universe is not intrinsically fair, things are only in fair in terms of the rules we have to take the initiative to decide, and
from there we'd be incapable of escaping moral debate about how we choose which rules to establish.
There is no inherent purpose or reason for the rules themselves.
There presumably is if they are rules constructed by people. There isn't if it's the rules of the universe, like the laws physics, but that should just redirect you to my points about why it's silly to talk about the laws of physics as if they were civil laws or rules to a game.
'Fairness' is the only thing with intrinsic purpose and it is singular. Whether it be forced (as with physics) or optional (as in traffic laws), it's purpose is 'balance.' Equality. For every reaction, and equal and opposite reaction.
Do you even know what you're saying? Because it increasingly sounds like this is all improvised pseudo-profundity one might rattle off at 2:00am, perhaps while slightly drunk.
Did you know the words any, every, and nothing mean different things?
Suit yourself, but that's awfully shallow. And ultimately pointless. Fairness is an enormous concept with implications that touch everything on every level.
How on earth would something be rendered pointless by
only being relevant in the context of peoples' lives? You know,
nothing has a point outside of the experience of sentient beings. So, being relevant to life pretty much encompasses the entire realm in which anything has a point. And as for the second part, nothing I said contradicts that either. Everything I said is perfectly compatible to having enormous implications that touch everything on every level, at least as far as
life goes.
Unless by everything you mean that fairness is relevant even to the inanimate stuff throughout the universe, like clouds whirling around Jupiter, because I'm saying no, fairness really has no implications for that.
I think the relationship between randomization and fairness is fascinating; like shuffling cards, or flipping a coin before a 'fair' game.
Precisely why I say that limiting your understanding of fairness to a comparative one between people in the direct and complete sense that you are doing is pointless. Like watching a chess player play chess at a volleyball player who is playing volleyball back at him. There are other systems that human beings can/do participate in that are fair, however. Just depends on which tickets they buy for which rides, and how well built/enforced those rides are. This forum, for instance, is one of them.
The entire point is that it's not impartial, and it's not just, so it's not fair. That's all explained, mostly in the stuff you didn't quote.
Look, you are broadly stating your position, but you haven't really fleshed it out. I've given arguments for what I think about this that you have not responded to, so this is pointless. You're stating and re-stating your original position without adjusting and responding to my points. Like the fairness and game randomization thing; any response to that I can think of would just be a re-statement of something I've already said that you haven't addressed so far. So what would be the point in saying it yet again so you can
not address it again? And you know, that's a thing you tend to do. You leave out much of the bulk of peoples' arguments and skip over everything that might challenge you. In so far as you've actually written anything that's required new material from me, I have to write everything in multiple contingencies since all of your stuff is opaque drivel that looks like it could well mean two or three different things. I feel like I have to keep providing a different response for each of the things it looks like you might be trying to say (and sometimes instead I just opt for pointing how ridiculous this stuff looks).
Basically, you're quoting my posts for virtually no reason since you mostly don't respond to the content, and then use it as a white board to write pretentious nonsense. I think that will be sufficiently apparent to any discerning individual, and I see no reason to carry on here.