Total posts: 3,478
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Our science and morality is built upon one "fact": That experience matters, and that what you see is true. That simply isn't true, as we cannot prove anything based on experience: How do we know that invisible aliens aren't pushing all these objects to create the illusion of Gravity? We do not know. Even though the current physics may not be "true", it is plausible, or that we think it is true, or that it is subjectively true. There is nothing preventing someone with what we call schizophrenia to actually see objects "with mass" to float upwards without seemingly any force exerted on it. In fact, we cannot conclude that those ones with schizophrenia are seeing the real world as it is, and we just have the same symptom of schizophrenia. How do we determine normal vision and abnormal vision? By social categorization, or what we "think" is right versus what we think isn't. Even how we see the world cannot be proven to be true, let alone speculation based on it.You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky. Even though we tend to believe our experiences and more often times than not, you see the objects behave exactly like how the old people tell you through the physic textbook that they are going to behave, it is through YOUR vision. You can only prove that this time it worked, subjectively, but never that it WILL work next time, objectively.Objective truth based on experience is equal to nonsense because objective experience is impossible and experience is not objective. Anything we consider true, based on experience, are, at most, subjective truths.
Is this just an argument about semantics, are you just bunged up about the definition of "objective", because there's a lot of that going around.
If you reject experience and science, then how do you function, on what basis do you attempt to be reality adjusted?
Do you really approach a shopping cart fearful it will push you against the wall. You really don't believe what you see? Are you concerned what you are experiencing is a schizophrenic dream? When you see a busy street, do you wonder if your eves are decieving you and become fearful that a truck is going to run you over any second?
I'm serious, if you really believe what you have typed here, how can you possibly function? When you go ourside into the real world, how do you cope, what happens? What do you believe to be true and why?
You typed the post, why do you believe your post is true, and why?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Whatever floats your boat kid, you've tried to sell your BOP game to me before too, DR is a coward, do you want to formally debate it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Say the zealot killed because he thought it was the right thing to do, and he felt he was 'helping' his country, whereas the other individuals killed because he didn't want to be punished.Both of them killed. Is there one that is worse?
Yes, the context, intent, and motivation matters, especially in cases of murder. That's why the law specifies different degrees and types of murder, with different punishment.
Do you think a hate crime murder, a mercy killing, a soldier killing in battle, and killing in self defence, are morally all the same? All of them killed, isn't there one that i worse?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Did you really need to embarrass me like that?
LOL, sorry man, I'm sure you would have seen it sober.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proofWTF?That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret textbook of denial and deceit. And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me. It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradesecret textbook of denial and deceit. And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.
I gave the post links so you could see for yourself that his standard lie about context is just that, a lie.
If you aren't interested in the truth, didn't even bother to look, then your BS opinion is irrelvent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
ThankWhiteySlaves. TheyWillSuck. Just. He's an obnoxious fucking loser really. I'm drunk lol. I wish I could think of something fucking sick burn for his dumbass acronym. TheWhiteSerpent. Something.
TWS = The White Supremacist
Created:
Posted in:
It may be the right thing to do, but we all know no Republican would have done the right thing.
And where is Obama, when is he going to hit the campaign trail, he has the most potential to influence the midterms, is he on vacation or what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
It certainly matters what the different reasons are, but in general, I think "intent" is what matters most, murder is more wrong than an accidental death, a hate crime is worse than self defense, premeditated is worse than temporary insanity. That is why intent is so important in determining punishment in our legal system, trying to do the right thing with bad consequences is unfortunate, but not morally wrong, intending to bring about bad consequences is morally wrong.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
@Shila
Yes, we know. Why do you keep posting this? I already explained to you, literally sentence by sentence, what this means and how it shows that your and Sidewalker's claims about what I said are full of shit.
She’s posting it because she can see you are a liar, everyone
can see that, you aren’t fooling anyone. You are a liar, the fact is, no matter
how many times you lie about it, it is still a bald-faced lie.
Let’s take a look, in context, here’s the lie you were called on, and this time I’m providing the post numbers so you can’t fall back on your standard double down lie about context, this is your lie:
Let’s take a look, in context, here’s the lie you were called on, and this time I’m providing the post numbers so you can’t fall back on your standard double down lie about context, this is your lie:
#746
Sidewalker: But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.Double_R: I would debate this claim if I had ever made it and/or believe it. I don’t and never have.
Now
it’s time for you to make up lies about only a few of these posts, all from one
thread, where you made the claim that
you now say you never made.
Let’s
see how you weasel out of this, you claim that if it’s about the God you
believe in then the burden of proof is on you, why do you now say you have
never claimed “faith in God carries the burden of
proof”, that is clearly a lie.
#156
Sidewalker: Almost all adult believers are conceiving of God to be transcendent, this idea of it being a matter of faith and transcendence is not really a secret, Atheists who pretend they don’t know that are either completely uninformed about the subject matter, or have an agenda and this disingenuous misconception is nothing but a tactic.
Double_R: This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.
I very
carefully explained that Belief in God is a matter of faith, and you insist
that “This is why the burden of proof
is on you”, why do you now say you have
never claimed “faith in God carries the burden of
proof”, that is clearly a lie.
#188
Sidewalker: Belief in God is a matter of faith, there is no “burden of proof”.
Double_R: Anyone who makes a claim carries with it, a burden of proof.
It
couldn’t be any clearer than when I explained it yet again, that belief
in God is a matter of faith and you respond that there is a burden of
proof, and now you never made the claim “that faith in God carries the
burden of proof”, that is a lie.
#333
Sidewalker: Perhaps your scholarship could include using a dictionary;
Faith:
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:
Double_R: This has absolutely nothing to do with anything a I just said.
I even tried to
give you the dictionary definition of faith that says that it is not a matter
of proof, and you tied to say that faith and proof has absolutely nothing to do
with anything you said LOL, I gotta give it to you kiddie, you really do buy
into the whole Trumb vibe that says “if you’re gonna lie, then lie big, and do
it obviously” LOL, but if you think anyone can’t see through your blatant lies
and misrepresentations, you are even more incoherent than we already think.
Face it, you are a liar, and you lie to cover up the fact that you just don’t get the whole logical argument thing, and nobody is fooled. That is why you won’t formally debate, you know you will get your ass handed to you again.
Face it, you are a liar, and you lie to cover up the fact that you just don’t get the whole logical argument thing, and nobody is fooled. That is why you won’t formally debate, you know you will get your ass handed to you again.
Created:
-->
@Shila
--> @SidewalkerThis is the exchange you are being dishonest about:If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proofWTF?That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.See your post#736--> @SidewalkerIf, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.Rules of your illogical BOP game?Your reply Double_R below:Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof. Clearly you don’t, which is why you pretend it’s a game.Why do you keep lying even after you are exposed?
He's like Trump, when he's caught lying he doubles down and the lies just get bigger.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Is that what will happen if he doesn’t win this Senate seat - he will be destroyed? What qualifies Herschel Walker to be a Senator exactly?
He's an idiot, a compulsive liar, a hypocrite, and he's been on TV a lot, that qualifies him to be a Republican Senator, or a Republican President for tht matter.
Created:
Roy Cohn, The Man Who Taught Donald Trump Everything He Knows
"Roy Cohn has been called the most malevolent force in 20th-century American politics — and that was before mentoring a young Donald Trump in mafia-style politics."
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proofAnd the very next post you never said that LOLCalling me dishonest while selectively editing our conversation to take my words out of context. WOW.Let’s take a look at what I actually said and the part you strategically left out:Post 736:If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.Rules of your illogical BOP game?Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof.I listed two different assertions, one about morality and the other about god being existent. I then stated “the latter” was a factual claim. I was talking about the latter of my listed options, not the latter of what you said.This is English 101.And in my last response I also explained that this is why context matters in conversation. I didn’t catch that you were talking about asserting nothing more than a statement of one’s own beliefs because that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation you were chiming in on and frankly is a stupid thing to talk about on a debate site. No one here cares what you believe if you are not willing to assert and defend it.It is no wonder you believe the silly things you do, especially when it comes to understanding those you disagree with. You do not pay attention to what others say and you disregard any part of the discussion that doesn’t suit your agenda.
This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
Of course you backpeddled in subsequent posts, that's Double R Dishonesty 101.
You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me. It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.
I'm not going to bother to go find all the times you've asserted that to me because you will just do what you always do, make up definitions, obfuscate, and lie....unless you want to formally debate it that is, if you have the unmitigated gall to bald face lie about it in a formal debate, then I'll go find all of the times you've whined and cried about it to me.
Don't worry, after you lose the debate you can always fall back on your "Trumpy routine" on losing debates and claim the vote wasn't fair.
OK, now it's time for you to say I'm not worth your time and attention, so, GO.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
And the very next post you never said that LOL
But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.I would debate this claim if I had ever made it and/or believe it. I don’t and never have. You are having a whole conversation in your head.
I'm sure everybody here fell for that dishonest BS, good job kiddie.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If you read my post, I said, asserts belief in God,And if you read the exchange your post was written in response to, you would know that this conversation has nothing to do with “asserting belief in God”. It’s about morality and for the most part God has been assumed for the sake of argument.Context matters in communication. Take note of it and these conversations will go a lot better.But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.I would debate this claim if I had ever made it and/or believe it. I don’t and never have. You are having a whole conversation in your head.
Illogical, incohernt, and dishonest, the Double R triple play, how many points is that in your game?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.Rules of your illogical BOP game?Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.
I read the exchange, it's like all of your exchanges, you debate the debate rather than the subject matter of the debate, you assert your own subjective definitions of words, your own subjective logic, and usually, like in this post, you confuse epistemology with ontology. All you ever seem to say is that these are the axioms of my faith, believe in me and don’t question it.
If you read my post, I said, asserts belief in God, and as with every exchange we've had, the difference is belief in God based on faith, it's only in your puerile game that there is a burden of proof.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof. Clearly you don’t, which is why you pretend it’s a game.
Someone who asserts belief in God as a matter of faith, is making a factual claim that they believe, it's an epistemological statement, it asserts the existence of faith, your passionate fundamentalism keeps you from understanding that. Sorry kiddie, but your special little pretend definition of atheism doesn't change the basic principles of logic, and it doesn't make you the only peron who can play the BOP card, that's just in your invented game's rule book.
You've called into question the very notion of truth by turning your claims
to truth into little more than power plays, when you claim that what you say is true, all you are really
doing is claiming status for beliefs that advance your fundamentalist agenda.
But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You assert God. That’s not a truth statementYou choose God because that’s what you value. Values are subjective. Always have been and always will be.
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.
Rules of your illogical BOP game?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Why are atheists like water?Atheists, like theists, cannot walk on water.
No, it's because Jesus can make them both wine.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Why are atheists like water?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep, that 30 percent will always be with us.
Snowflakes and thier alternative facts, making my point and he doesn't even know it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
prove Anything...Well lets start with proving to Americans like yourself that not even close to half of the country isn't being represented in DC right now. By the latest polls, MAYBE 30 percent of Americans can stomach the lies from the current government in power.
The Hitler youth disapproves of democracy, gee whiz, that's not something you see every day...oh wait, yes it is, every day, go figure.
I don't know what dictionary you are using bud, but that sure as hell don't look like democracy.
You looked up the wrong word, you were supposed to look up anything, pay attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It will be a long time before anything can get proven to all Americans .Prove what?
Anything, pay attention.
That all the shit Americans suffered in the past 2 years would have been avoided if a politician out of power was in jail instead? Give me a break man.
Take a break, and maybe while you're at it get a dictionary and look up the word anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
It amazes me that some Americans are so ignorant that it took Trump for them to realize democracy was all messed up and that entrenched people in DC are the ones that have mattered for 8 decades.Putting Trump in jail with prove to all Americans they are not above the law.
The problem is it will only prove that to half of Americans, to the other half it will prove that we have political retribution. The two sides of this divided country inhabit two different countries, it's two different news sources, two different ways of thinking, two different ways of seeing the things that happen. Trump told his people "Don't believe what you see and hear, believe what I tell you", and they did.
It will be a long time before anything can get proven to all Americans .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Trump is going to run because being a prominent Presidential candidate buys him a lot of deference and delay in the courtroom. Win or lose (almost certainly lose) it helps his legal problems and funding problems big time and Trump does not give a single fuck whether that's good for the GOP or not. If the GOP doesn't want him, he will certainly run independent. (and if the GOP does want him, Cheney had all but promised to run a spoiler campaign.) The best thing that could happen to the GOP is the death of Trump.
I would love to see Trump run as an independant, that would be awesome.
Likewise, Harris' best shot is if Biden dies in office and soon- giving her a shot at some executive experience before 2024. I don't think Harris wins a head-to-head against Trump or DeSantis.
Yeah, that whole devoid of charisma thing would hurt her, I think she peaked at something like 15% in the primaries and didn't even lead in California, I can't believe Biden picked her, I was rooting for Abrams, or Deming, I really have no idea what he was thinking when he picked her.
Personally, I prefer moderate technocrats and I like the idea of a Buttigieg/Booker kind of ticket.
I think Buttigieg and Booker are great, just don't think that either one could win. Of course, I've been wrong before, hell, I don't think a single week during the primaries went by without me predicting the demise of Trump's candidacy, then when we won the nomination I would have bet my life he was going to lose huge, so I'm not very good at predicting. I mean, how do you predict anything when you feel like you are trapped in a Fellini movie?
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future!” - Niels Bohr
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
MORALITY is NOT an OBJECTtherefore,MORALITY cannot be OBJECTIVEYep, I get it, the word objective only applies to objects, and only objects exist.only OBJECTS can "exist independently of a mind" (if you consider the definition of "objective")
Not gonna argue with an object, I mean, what would be the objective?
NOUMENON
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you agree with the rest of us that your ideas are NOT FACTUAL.MORALITY is NOT an OBJECTtherefore,MORALITY cannot be OBJECTIVE
Yep, I get it, the word objective only applies to objects, and only objects exist.
Can't argue with that, well, I could argue with that, anybody with half a brain could, but what would be the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Not sure about the Democrat, too soon to tell maybe.That’s a bummer; this is my main curiosity… from anyone who is rooting against the GOP…
I'm thinking it depends on the Republican candidate.
As an ex-Republican who left the party because of Trump and what he did to the party, I'd like to see Trump run again, he's turned losing into a lifestyle, I think we can count on him to lose again.Odd— you would rather the source of your frustration return to the helm of the party than fade into irrelevancy? You have essentially given up the GOP for dead and write it off as being beyond repair for the rest of your days?
Unfortunately, yes, I think what Trump revealed about the Republican party is that it is broken beyond repair.
My dissapointment in the party started before Trump actually. When Obama was running I was a huge McCain fan, people wanted to try to tell me the Republican party was racist and I'd land on them with both feet, but when I saw how Republican's responded to Obama I could help but see it as racially motivated, it was clearly racism that elevated Trump to party ruler. He showed the Republicans they could win if they embraced white supremacists, they took that Faustian deal and in my eyes, they can never get thier soul back.
What I hate most about Trump is what he revealed to me about the Anerican people, in the last 15 years I went from ashamed to be a Republican, to ashamed to be an American, to ashamed to be a white man, realistically, I don't think I can ever go back to the Republican party.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
there is a clear and important difference between IDEAS and OBJECTSNo shit.IDEAS don't "exist" in the same way that OBJECTS "exist"No shit again.dragons and unicorns don't "exist" in the same way that cattle "exist"Once again, maybe ideas don't exist for you, but they do for the rest of us.cattle can be empirically measured and are therefore FACTUALdragons and unicorns can NOT be empirically measured and are therefore NOT FACTUAL
So you agree with the rest of us that your ideas are NOT FACTUAL.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just because logic and reason don't exist for you, doesn't mean they don't exist for the rest of us.there is a clear and important difference between IDEAS and OBJECTS
No shit.
IDEAS don't "exist" in the same way that OBJECTS "exist"
No shit again.
dragons and unicorns don't "exist" in the same way that cattle "exist"
Once again, maybe ideas don't exist for you, but they do for the rest of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Trump is often his own worst enemy when it comes to unforced errors. Two questions:1. What do you think about a President Harris in 2024?
I would hate that, not sure why exactly, but I have a bad visceral reaction to Harris, plus the primaries showed me she doesn't know how to win.
2. Who would be your preferred presidential candidate from both parties in 2024?
Not sure about the Democrat, too soon to tell maybe.
As an ex-Republican who left the party because of Trump and what he did to the party, I'd like to see Trump run again, he's turned losing into a lifestyle, I think we can count on him to lose again. Of course, that assumes he's not in prison by 2024, if so, then Desantis, he seems to trying to out-Trump Trump.
The radical right controls the Republican primary, but they give us candidates that can't win a general election. To win a primary they have to throw red meat at the snarling Trump base, but the Trump base isn't enough to win a general election.
What I hope for most, is Andrew Yang doesn't run as a Forward candidate, I was a big fan of his but if he runs he will gaurantee a Republican win.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Since you cherry picked from my post, can I assume you agree that you are thinking on a thrid grade level?Let me know when you have something intelligent to say.
Good, you got it, mimicking what you typed was to show how unintelligent your comment was.
I was afraid it would be lost on a third grader mind.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you measure exist, do you have an exist-o-meter
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
in the exact same way you should never have to make a personal judgement about mathematicseveryone should be able to "do the math" and see the exact same answerWhat's the square root of 4. Is two the exact same answer as negative two?Is non-Euclidean Geometry the exact same thing as Euclidean Geometry?(IFF) you agree on the AXIOMS of mathematics (THEN) you can agree on the results of any specific mathematical calculation(IFF) you agree on the AXIOMS of morality (THEN) you can agree on the results of any specific moral calculation
So you really do think that two is the exact same answer as negative two?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Only things you can point at exist?it's the difference between CONCRETE NOUNS and ABSTRACT NOUNS
Just because logic and reason don't exist for you, doesn't mean they don't exist for the rest of us.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Only things you can point at exist?Yes, if you cannot point to it in theory, it does not exist. This follows from the definition of “exist”.Since you cherry picked that one part to disagree with, should I take that to mean that you agree with the rest of the post on what objectivity and subjectivity actually mean?
Since you cherry picked from my post, can I assume you agree that you are thinking on a thrid grade level?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Keyword JUDGEMENT.you should never have to make a personal judgement about "objective morality"
Then why are you blathering on and on about your personal judgement about objective morality?
How to you measure personal judgement" Got a personal judgement meter?
in the exact same way you should never have to make a personal judgement about mathematicseveryone should be able to "do the math" and see the exact same answer
What's the square root of 4. Is two the exact same answer as negative two?
Is non-Euclidean Geometry the exact same thing as Euclidean Geometry?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you "objectively" measure morality ?With a moral compass.where can i buy one of these
At the morality store.
and where can i get it calibrated ?
Any NOUMENON service outlet
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Morality is not a part of existent reality. You cannot point to itWe learned this in third grade.
Only things you can point at exist?
Yep, that's third grade thinking alright.
Created:
Posted in:
Trump dials up the hate, during a time of increasing political violence he invites violence on Mitch McConnel and his wife. At the same time this racist, insurrectionist, defamation machine that can hardly speak without flinging defamatory remarks at anyone who opposes him, hypocritically sues CNN for using word like “racist” and “insurrectionist” to refer to him.
Is this dangerous lunatic simply desperate for attention or what? I expect that next he will go after Desantis for stealing his spotlight.
He bragged that his base thinks murder is OK, and to them five dead is a peaceful protest, if one of his many crazies kills McConnel, should he be held accountable?
Trump's violent rhetoric conjures chilling echoes as midterms loom | CNN Politics
The former President dialed up the hate another notch last week with a social media post that accused Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, with whom he has a strained relationship, of having a “death wish” and flung racism at his wife, former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. In another escalation, Trump recently slammed FBI agents as “vicious monsters” over the lawful search of his Florida home.
Trump files $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN | AP News
Trump’s lawsuit claims “The Big Lie” phrase CNN uses, “is intended to aggravate, scare and trigger people,” while he does his best to “aggravate, scare and trigger people”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Because of this belief, you speculate she is cheating despite lacking substantial evidence for your claim.I already posted that I don’t think there was infidelity.
She did fuck the people of Georgia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
There just are too, far too many fucking UGLY people in this world.
Is that why you guys wear the white sheets?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
I have ZERO patience for stupid people.None.
Your Klan meetings must be unbearable then.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
by choosing to be responsible for how we ought to behavehow do you "objectively" measure morality ?
With a moral compass.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
by the discernment of underlying principlesplease provide just a few examples of "moral axioms" ?
According to Immanuel Kant (the other NOUMENON guy) the categorical imperitive is the basis underlying principle of Morality, "Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational
people to follow, as if it were a universal law". A few examples of his moral axioms are:
- One should always respect the humanity in
others
- One should only act in accordance with rules that could hold
for everyone
- Never treat a person as a means to
an end.
He formulated the categorical imperitive four ways, I suppose thst is four examples of moral axioms:
The Formula of the Law of Nature: "Act as if the maxim
of your action were to become through your will a universal law of
nature."
The Formula of the End Itself: "Act in such a way that
you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
The Formula of Autonomy: "So act that your will can
regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its
maxims."
The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: "So act as if you
were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends."
:
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe there is real mental or moral causality in the universe, and consequently, there is a moral dimension of reality that exists objectively, rather than subjectively.Most everyone considers mathematical knowledge to be objective knowledge, and I believe, and can logically argue, that moral knowledge is objective in much the same way that mathematical knowledge is objective. There are many objective facts that are based on human nature and so I believe that morality is grounded in human nature and is therefore objective, and as mentioned above, I do not believe that one needs to invoke God to make the case.The caveat being recognition that morality is a matter of human conduct, it's about how human beings "ought" to act, so if by "Objective Morality" we mean morality that would exist independently of human beings, then I think that is a meaningless question. To question objective morality independently of human beings is to pose the question in the context of a reality in which logic, science, morality, reasoning, questions and arguments don’t exist. The simple objective fact is that human beings experience a reality that includes values, purposes, and meanings. The very idea that these and related concepts such as morality can be evaluated in some kind of contrived context that is independent of human beings is meaningless.If we understand objective knowledge to be knowledge based on observation of the real world, as is the case with objective scientific or mathematical knowledge, then I think that moral knowledge is also arrived at by observation and can be considered objective.sounds greatwhat is your moral equivalent to 1 + 1 = 2 ?
If the question is how are mathematics and morality related in my argument...At some stage of human evolution, our ancestors developed a
brain structure that gave them access to the mental world of mathematics. It then became as much a part of their
environment as were the physical environment in which they lived, and they did what
animals do, they explored their environment, and what they did was discover the
reality in which they lived. We can pontificate all day long as to whether or
not that reality ontologically “exists” or is “real”, but the fact remains that
it is a part of our realty, it is a feature of our experience and an aspect of
the environment we explore.
The kind of consideration in the case of mathematical experience that led us to discover an enriched human environment applies equally to other distinctive forms of human ability. The human experience includes qualities, values, meaning, and purpose, and these ethical intuitions indicate the existence of a moral dimension of reality open to our exploration to discover further humanizing facts about the nature of the reality of our experience.
The kind of consideration in the case of mathematical experience that led us to discover an enriched human environment applies equally to other distinctive forms of human ability. The human experience includes qualities, values, meaning, and purpose, and these ethical intuitions indicate the existence of a moral dimension of reality open to our exploration to discover further humanizing facts about the nature of the reality of our experience.
Consequently, there is no reason that we cannot arrive at objective moral knowledge in the same way that we arrive at other types of objective knowledge, by the discernment of underlying principles which are then tested by examining how well those principles align with further observations of the world of our experience.
The simple self-evident experiential reality of a human being is one that is imbued with qualities, values, meaning, and purpose, consequently it is reasonable to accept as fact that we are morally responsible causal agents. Therefore, it is by direct observation that we can conclude that there is real mental or moral causality in the universe, and from that, we can conclude that moral knowledge is objective knowledge.
Moral knowledge is objective because it is based on human nature, and what we observe about human nature is that we are self-transcending beings. When we gain access to a new rational dimension of reality, we immediately begin exploring that new dimension of our environment and go about discovering the unique aspects of that reality. In so doing, we transcend our previous state, and bring that new reality into being. In the end, we are the creators of human nature, we define our nature by the choices we make.
By using the faculty of reason then, we can determine the way we ought to behave by simply accepting the responsibility that comes with the freedom to choose. By turning away from unresolvable and obfuscating intellectual constructs, and simply voting with our life by choosing to be responsible for how we ought to behave in recognition that objective morality is axiomatic in making a truly moral life possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You really have to admire the extreme schadenfreude take on politics today. The remarkably quick regression from hundreds of years of developed enlightened thinking is a case study of the exact society Hobbes predicted in the natural state.The downward spiral is fascinating like a carnival ride. The excuses for the chest pounding and demonization are legion. It is a perfect example of a rapid regression into the natural society Hobbes warned us all about.
I don't suppose you invoke Hobbes because his recommended solution to the natural state is that we all commit to mindless obediance of an "unaccountable sovereign".
As opposed to the accountability inherent in the democratic process and our Constitution, you know, that system you guys want to overhtrow so you can have your unaccountable autocrat.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If anybody here wants to debate the issue that Morality is Objective, I'm your Huckleberry.and I won't be invoking God in my argument.please explain
I believe there is real mental or moral causality in the universe, and consequently, there is a moral dimension of reality that exists objectively, rather than subjectively.
Most everyone considers mathematical
knowledge to be objective knowledge, and I believe, and can logically argue,
that moral knowledge is objective in much the same way that mathematical knowledge
is objective. There are many objective
facts that are based on human nature and so I believe that morality is grounded in
human nature and is therefore objective, and as mentioned above, I do not
believe that one needs to invoke God to make the case.
The caveat being recognition that morality is a matter of human conduct, it's about how human beings "ought" to act, so if by "Objective Morality" we mean morality that would exist independently of human beings, then I think that is a meaningless question. To question objective morality independently of human beings is to pose the question in the context of a reality in which logic, science, morality, reasoning, questions and arguments don’t exist. The simple objective fact is that human beings experience a reality that includes values, purposes, and meanings. The very idea that these and related concepts such as morality can be evaluated in some kind of contrived context that is independent of human beings is meaningless.
If we understand objective knowledge to be knowledge based on observation of the real world, as is the case with objective scientific or mathematical knowledge, then I think that moral knowledge is also arrived at by observation and can be considered objective.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i want to know what is right and what is wrongBy projecting so much your basically claiming to already know.you're the one claiming morality is "objective"
I think he's actually claiming it is "absolutely subjective" and calling that objective.
but still won't bother to define it beyond that
If anybody here wants to debate the issue that Morality is Objective, I'm your Huckleberry.
and I won't be invoking God in my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
That being said, she's been made into this superhuman caricature that goes beyond her actual shortcomings. When she tweeted an admittedly dumb thing about lasers from the air supposedly causing a wildfire (and to be fair, the technology isn't as farfetched today as it used to be), the media spun it into "Jewish space lasers" out of whole cloth despite no mention whatsoever of Jews. Seeing as they lied about that detail, I can only imagine how many journalistic "embellishments" inform the left's assessment of her.
"No mention whatsoever of Jews" is not really accurate, conspiracy theories are all about what's implied, especially when you are using anti-semitic tropes. In the post she raised conspiracy suspicians by talking about who may have built and used the space lasers by referencing who stood to benefit from it, she named the Rothschilds, the wealthy Jewish banking family frequently referred to in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
It wasn't Journalists that embellished it, #JewishSpaceLasers began trending on Twitter almost immediately, and she did in fact imply the Rothschilds were behind it. If you take a serious look at what she has said and done, it's not a "superhuman caricature that goes beyond her actual shortcomings", it's superhuman shortcomings that brought her all the media attention. Unfortunately, it's conspircy theory showmanship that makes you prominent in the Trump bases eyes, she's over the top and the sad fact is, as with all of the outragious showmanship, it's what raises money and gets you media attention.
I'm old enough to remember when it was mostly about policy, but that was in the pre-Trump era, before half the country opted for reality TV politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Gay Parrot has a warped relationship with women. Probably because he has never kissed one and he lives in his mother’s basement.
Trailer parks have basements?
Created: