3RU7AL

we don’t choose to like unhealthy foods

we don’t choose to like singer A’s voice more than singer B’s voice

I am typically very anti-authoratarian, even in the best circumstances - let's say the person is really nice, cares about their "country" or "nation" or whatever - Running a country is hard from what I've read they can become very easily overworked, even good people are manipulatable, whenever one person is in charge of everything typically there aren't people checking their work, so they make more mistakes.... but.... even "good" people can be wrong, and can be corrupted by literally being the king of everything. To be clear, that won't even be the case most of the time, and even if, let's like in Rome, you start off with a "good" or at the very least successful dictator, it is not very likely that will last. Decentralized Control? Hmm.... I'd have to do more research to answer for sure, but from what I've read it seems appealing.

Please make your personally preferred definition(s) EXPLICIT

Definition of words are established. I choose the correct definition, I do not cherry-pick based on my personal preference. I was telling theweakeredge that his definition is incorrect, not offering one of my own.

For the sake of discussion let’s assume morality and its nature, if you presume it’s subjective then a naysayer has a right to ask for proof but proof goes against subjectivity making it fundamentally impossible because proof is objective.

Why is that only atheist can say they are anti a whole group of people and not hate them but any other group who said that would be called out on it. 

You mean like slavery and forced indentured servitude like the US with cotton, agriculture, rail roads and such? Still using it today with illegal immigration.  Let's talk about the killing of the Native Americans and Africans for sport. Let's talk about the complete annihilation of native religions in Europe buy Catholics.  

I concede that the example of Abraham is relevant to this question but I take the view that that example was unique. It was one out of the box and was for our understanding not for our example to follow. 

You just need to trust authority a little harder.

They know what is best. You do not.

Because their president lost. What happened whenever Hilary lost in 2016, were there riots?

that does not necessarily mean that you hate theists.

The word Objective in our discussion does not mean actual. 

I feel that a god would do more harm than good - and this especially applies to the incantations that theists believe in.

You are correct when reffering to the world.

Why is the world becomming a better place?

1. Capitalism - Created by christianity
   

"Objective morality" you claim, yet you don't understand that if what god's typically spew is "morality" then I want nothing to do with morality.

oNLY the RICH (& famous) deserve privilege.

no they should not

Society were as stable and peacefull as possible during the Christian dominion.

...han other people, no, but since they are targeted more (like a denomination that literally wants state mandated executions of gay people) they should have a bit more protection. Just like if som...

USA was never paganistic, unlles you clasify indian spiritual traditions as paganism.

no specific group should be "privledged"

I would say that Humans are violent evil and brutal, that all civilisations fought and killed each other, and only the Christian west stopped doing so.

Can you plesase show me ANY country that was ever great without being Christian or former Christian?

PGA2.0 : “You forget so soon. The Bible says that God is necessary to know what is good GM.”

Because it hurts people.

you are literally just guessing the goal.

Hebrews could not own slaves in the old souths because God said, 

Exodus 21:26-27

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

However, some theorists claim we can know many more moral propositions a priori, in particular, propositions that are not so closely tied to the meaning or reference of moral terms. Others go farther, claiming that most or all moral claims can be known a priori, or even that moral claims can be known only a priori.

You dont get it that no one owns the Earth or the sky.

The bible explicitly forbids ownership of ANY human (slavery) and sets the penalty for slavery as death.

My point was not that slavery did not exist, but that the bible does not condone or excuse it.

However, there were also slaves who were so their entire lives, so it was both indentured servitude and slavery in a traditional sense.  

I'm going to hazard a guess that the slaves that were literally BORN INTO SLAVERY were "not voluntary".

You would be wrong. The kind of slavery the Bible is talking about is indentured servitude where a person worked off a debt.

PS. I object to your use of "thumbs up" as a bookmark. That is not how this tool at the bottom of the post should be used. 

You dont seem to get that all other systems of governance have been chasing or attempting to prove their system is better..Free market capitalism allows the smallest few to do most damamge to ecology via their greed and greed of all peoples.

Murder is a malicious taking of a life, and it begins with hate and/or anger, as pointed out in the NT.

"Atheists believe in atheism"???

Atheists lack belief in concepts???

Atheists might accept logical concepts...???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I don't quite understand the application of this citation. Are you citing it to convey that there will always be a threat of overuse and "selfish" interests countermanding the "common good"? Are you suggesting that examples of commons in the article serve as an example of regulated public goods? What is the "common good"?

You've just managed to prove that STATE run libraries are NOT PUBLIC.

How? Why does "public" necessarily mean "freely available to everyone"?

The State "owns" nothing; the State in effect assumes control through, as you correctly surmised, the monopolization of (deadly) force. But even by the State's inconsistent legal rubric, the State doesn't exercise abusus (alienation) of its property. It in effect "rents" in all cases.

Almost everything about the STATE is functionally PRIVATE.

How so?

Corporations cooperate all the time.

They can make and break these non-contractual alliances at will.

Yes, they do. But Corporations aren't necessarily "private" or "individual."

And the concept of hierarchy wouldn't apply to "worker management"?

Capitalism is more unfettered than socialism on all issues.  You dont seem to get that.

does it actually require more resources to have one school for the whites, one for the blacks, one for the Arabs, one for the Asians, etc.?

Darker eyed white people and darker eyed black people, prefer fast-paced learning. They will tend to perform better in exams per IQ point they have and be very bad liars.

There exists zero scientific data that shows the color of your skin has anything to do with the DNA affecting intelligence. There is no scientific direct cause and effect. There is no way that you can put a person's skin under a shade chart and say definitively what their DNA is regarding intelligence and back it up with real science.

Yes, it was. Brown vs. The Board of Education was a means of ingratiating so called "black" students into the "public" public school system--which is pretty much a network of detention centers, and indoctrination camps. In said public school systems, not only are so called "black" children conditioned and exposed to so called "white," predominantly female authorities, but they're fed with false narratives especially about their history. Integration erodes indigenous cultures, and that hasn't bode well for so called "black" demographics in the United States.

How I protect myself, my family, my property, or determine that I need to protect myself, family, or property may have a detrimental effect on those who have done nothing wrong or even on what is right and wrong. It is not based upon my feelings or perceptions but upon what is right and wrong.