"YHWH" =/= Conservative Politics

Author: 3RU7AL 5 years ago

Posts

Total: 129

Topic's author

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,569

3

4

9

04.24.2019 01:49PM

3

4

9

04.24.2019 01:49PM

-->

@Snoopy

Put another way, maybe one could call it a backwards way of going about things, assuming that we may ascertain our relationship in the world we live in accordance with natural law.

Ok, I know these are not going to match your intentions perfectly, but please let me know which of the following proposals is closer to your belief.

A) The declaration of human rights is in conflict with the teachings of the "YHWH".

B) The declaration of human rights is in conflict with "natural law".

C) The declaration of human rights implicitly owes its "moral sense" to the teachings of the "YHWH".

D) The declaration of human rights implicitly owes its "moral sense" to the abstract concept of "natural law".

Please feel free to reformulate any of these options in your own language.

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 02:00PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 02:00PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I'm not presently schooled on the full history tracing back to the colonial era and beyond. For us Americans, what are considered rights is conceptually based in some sort of deistic natural law theory, thought to be derived from what the Jews and Christians call, God, not necessarily their teachings, which Americans may agree to disagree.

Topic's author

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,569

3

4

9

04.24.2019 02:19PM

3

4

9

04.24.2019 02:19PM

-->

@Snoopy

I'm not presently schooled on the full history going back, but for us Americans, what are considered rights is conceptually based in some sort of deistic [unknown unknowable creator] natural law [law of the jungle] theory, thought to be derived [who what when where why] from what the Jews and Christians call, God, not necessarily their teachings, which Americans may agree to disagree.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

However, I have one more question. Why would you say,

...one could call it a backwards way of going about things...

What would you consider the "forwards way of going about things"?

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 02:48PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 02:48PM

-->

@Snoopy

The issue with ad homs is not their insulting nature, though that is not desirable behavior when considering the social contract, it is that it makes a poor argument. Is your contention that you are not making an argument (formal or informal) at this time?

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 02:52PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 02:52PM

-->

@Snoopy

Also is it your intention to ignore post 34 or did you just miss it in the general hullabaloo?

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 02:53PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 02:53PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I guess so. I'm not too interested in this subject of conversation with you. If the input is entirely unappreciated, I'll take that from 3RU7AL.

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:00PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:00PM

-->

@Snoopy

You are of course welcome to cede your point (whayever it actually is).

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:05PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:05PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I may note misinformation on my account when appropriate. Mistakes are not an uncommon occurrence on my part

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:08PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:08PM

-->

@Snoopy

What mistakes and/or misinformation are you refering to specifically and how exactly does it relate to the conversation at hand? Also how does this free us from the fact that arguments (formal or informal) must follow a logical structure in order to keep them from being fallacious?

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:16PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:16PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Okay, all points are ceded to you. I therefore do not meet any burden of proof, and you do. You win.

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:17PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:17PM

-->

@Snoopy

I am uninterested in winning. I am interested in logical discourse. If you have none then we both lose.

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:19PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:19PM

-->

@secularmerlin

If a train is moving at 30 miles per hour, it will take approximately 2 hours to go 60 miles, assuming a relatively constant velocity. 60/30=2 You don't lose

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,008

3

2

3

04.24.2019 03:23PM

3

2

3

04.24.2019 03:23PM

But Electric trains don't lay eggs

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:26PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:26PM

-->

@Snoopy

That is a red herring at best and completely unrelated at worst. You need not reply if you find making logical points tiresome. Thank you in any case for the conversation.

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:33PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:33PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Are you referring to post #74 as a red herring? I don't understand how that works yet.

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:37PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:37PM

-->

@Snoopy

I was referring to post 72 and red herring is simply one of the possibilities I have mentioned.

Allow me to clarify. In a discussion about a hypothetical deity bringing up trains is either a red herring (attempting to distract from the actual duscussion) or the beginning of an entirely unrelated conversation.

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:41PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:41PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Oooohh, I thought you wanted to talk about how to say "ass", which I wasn't interested in, and then we moved on to logical discourse. Is that a red herring?

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:50PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:50PM

-->

@Snoopy

You used an ad hominem and I pointed it out at which time you began making excuses for why an ad hom has any place in the discussion you were engaged in. I failed to see how these excuses made any point and you decided you would very much like to change the subject.

That is our conversation in a nutshell. If I have somehow misunderstood you are welcome to clarify your position further.

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:51PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:51PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I made no allusion about my disinterest in continuing that topic with you. I also ceded all points to you, and said "you win". Then you said something about logical discourse being necessary so we both wouldn't lose.

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:53PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:53PM

-->

@Snoopy

I am not the poster you engaged in ad hominem attack against. If you intend to cede all points to someone perhaps 3RU7AL would be a better choice.

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:54PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 03:54PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Yeah, covered that already... I still don't know if post 72 is a red herring though

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:59PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 03:59PM

I must have missed your apology and/or the ceding of your position to 3RU7AL.

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 04:00PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 04:00PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I said that 3RU7AL can take it up with me at least a couple of times. I'm not really able to apologize at this time, if that is warranted. Evidently, 3RU7AL has not been interested in that subject matter for this thread up till this time. I'm not either, meant no ill will to begin with and would otherwise be forgotten. They have sent me a PM.

Topic's author

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,569

3

4

9

04.24.2019 04:05PM

3

4

9

04.24.2019 04:05PM

-->

@Snoopy

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

However, I have one more question. Why would you say,

...one could call it a backwards way of going about things...

What would you consider the "forwards way of going about things"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are free to act as you will. I don't find any particular tactics "offensive" just merely "moot".

I am only interested in exploring what you believe and why. I am more than happy to explain any of my own statements upon request.

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 04:06PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 04:06PM

-->

@Snoopy

Odd it would seem from my reading that he has attempted several times to bring you back to the subject at hand. Perhaps I have misunderstood your responses.

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 04:09PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 04:09PM

-->

@secularmerlin

It makes me feel kinda special : ) Yeah, we are way off the topic. If that's what a red herring is, we are sure reeling them in.

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 04:28PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 04:28PM

If I am to take that as wanting to return to the conversation at hand I then ask if you intend to respond to 34 or if you would like to return to the original point of contention (That the commands of the Yahweh are not directly equatable to conservative politics).

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 04:33PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 04:33PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I'm not interested in the continuing on post #34 with you. The thread title says YHWH =/= conservative politics, not the commands of Yahweh =/= conservative politics. I'm not sure why commands were later introduced into the thread yet, as that is something that 3RU7UL has not expounded on.

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

3

3

3

04.24.2019 04:38PM

3

3

3

04.24.2019 04:38PM

-->

@Snoopy

Ah so you are being pedantic about the exact wording of the thread title rather than seeing the actual purpose of the thread. That actually clears up alot. As someone who is also prone to pedantry I understand your objection but I believe that the commands of the Yahweh are what are actually under discussion here. Of course if I am incorrect 3RU7AL is more than welcome to correct me.

Debates: 1

Posts: 1,320

2

2

4

04.24.2019 04:39PM

2

2

4

04.24.2019 04:39PM

-->

@secularmerlin

Well, maybe, but I actually don't know the precise purpose of the thread.