Total posts: 1,732
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"I cant be on this site because Best.Korea said the bad word to me 🥺😭"
I don't really know who you are, but it is cute how you're craving my attention.
*Musses Best.Korea's hair*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I would agree with limiting the number of topics a person could create in a given time span.'Or moderation communicating with individuals who post spam topics of the same nature repeatedly.
Agree.
But I'm not partial to removing users whose opinions I disagree with.
If there is good reason for removing someone, they should be removed. Agreement/disagreement with their views is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Nothing prevents you from having an honest conversation with other honest people.
All of the tactics I described have the tendency of thinning the population of good-faith interlocutors on a site. Less honest people does, in fact, prevent the opportunity for honest exchanges.
Let us be reminded that users you want to ban make up most of this site's forum activity.
Not all activity is worth perpetuating. Moderate views will not find a comfortable home in a land of extremists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
@Savant
Still, Free Speech is important to some of us, You don't have my vote.
Free speech is important to me as well. That doesn't change the fact that speech here on this private platform is under the purview of the owner. If the owner were to take action - No one is being denied anything owed to them. We do not have a right to speech here without the owners approval. Valuing free speech means, at a minimum, understanding what it is. So, let's not get bogged down in bogus discussions about how rights (that don't exist) are being potentially denied.
Consistent and extreme voices can cause harm to a site. Is that happening here? Well, I agree with OP, DART compares negatively to the site it emulates. I think there is an argument to be made that some users intentionally rely on heavy rhetoric, propaganda, lies, dishonest tactics, etc. all having the effect of killing an honest exchange and comparison of ideas and ideologies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Fair, it's your living room, But then, I might not want to hang out in your living room.
You have an absolute right to NOT be in my living room. 😏
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What about freedom of speech?
Doesn't apply...just like in my living room. There is no reasonable expectation to be able to say absolutely anything from someone else's property.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is directed at the wrong person, my friend.So
Youve made little effort to address the previous points I've raised. If I were to engage this new point you've raised, will you ignore counter arguments again? I'm inclined to think "yes".
I have no interest in bad faith discussions.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Why would I do that? Plenty of sources count it.Are you aware the black unemployment rate is always higher than the non-black?
This is directed at the wrong person, my friend.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
First, black families in Texas are just like everyone else: capable of getting a gun if they so desireDo you know how much an AR-15 costs?
I wasn't aware crimes in California were committed exclusively with AR-15s. Besides that, I wasn't aware "black" was synonymous with poor.
Suffice to say, if OP meant "AR-15s" and *poor* black families, he should have made that clear. Regardless, my other points stand.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I tend to appreciate and agree with your views, but not this one...
First, black families in Texas are just like everyone else: capable of getting a gun if they so desire. Guns are readily available in guns stores, sporting goods stores, pawn shops, neighbors, friends, and family. ...and they are not that expensive. Surely you don't think rich folks make up the majority of suspects in crimes committed with a firearm...
Secondly, if Texas is the 'enemy' why would you send them firearms? Youre assuming, the guns will go to the right place and people. How does that happen? Presumably, those in power would be involved in this exchange against their power. I'm sure they'll be making sure non-supporters get the weapons. 🙄
Finally, political stunts like these are nothing more than 'preaching to the choir'. They don't persuade those with opposing views. If anything, they reinforce the us v them thinking that prevents the two sides finding a solution to their disagreements.
Boo. Booooo, I tell ya.
First, black families in Texas are just like everyone else: capable of getting a gun if they so desire. Guns are readily available in guns stores, sporting goods stores, pawn shops, neighbors, friends, and family. ...and they are not that expensive. Surely you don't think rich folks make up the majority of suspects in crimes committed with a firearm...
Secondly, if Texas is the 'enemy' why would you send them firearms? Youre assuming, the guns will go to the right place and people. How does that happen? Presumably, those in power would be involved in this exchange against their power. I'm sure they'll be making sure non-supporters get the weapons. 🙄
Finally, political stunts like these are nothing more than 'preaching to the choir'. They don't persuade those with opposing views. If anything, they reinforce the us v them thinking that prevents the two sides finding a solution to their disagreements.
Boo. Booooo, I tell ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
SkepticalOne- If you have favorite categories/topics, feel free to list them.
- Religious views - agnostic atheist
- Political views - left/progressive leaning
- morality- subjective, non-absolute, non universal, secular
- Abortion - pro-choice,
- Wall of separation - for, anti-religious nationalism, anti-religious privilege, anti religious founding of America
- misc views - Old round-ish earth, yes - evolution, yes - big bang, yes, death penalty, no, vaccinations, yes....
I don't mind doing some research to debate also...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
With 2 weeks debate time, I can debate. I'm not opposed to judging if there is a need also. Let me know what you need/want there, bossman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I'll provide a logical argument once OP does. 😏
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So unless you can prove to me that you and your atheism actually exist, the only logical thing to do is to believe in God since I know that he exists as I can feel him talking to me.
That's me talking to you. You are never alone, my child. 😏
I'd say this is a 3 out of 10 as far as shitposts go. It's pretty low effort.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think we can agree on this:
1) Christian sects which perform exorcisms don't think they are fake.
2) exorcisms often involve(d) the mentally ill.
3) exorcisms do not cure mental illness.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Do Christian sects which perform exorcisms believe possession is real? Yes. Is possession real? Probably not.
Back when I was a committed believer, I assisted in an exorcism. I saw nothing supernatural. I've seen no good reason to think this isn't the norm or that there is anything beyond the natural world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Our morality is somewhat centered on what keeps the population together (ie. Cooperation, empathy, compassion) , but definitely not perfectly so.Our moral conscience is. The choices we make based on that conscience isn't.
You can continue to assert that, but it's not something you can show to be true.
Acting morally and having a moral conscience are two different things.
Moral conscience (mind?) or not, animals act in ways that if it were humans you would recognize unquestionably as moral acts.
If you tell a dog to give you the stick back, and it growls at you, is it "sinning?"
If I tell you to give the stick back and you growl at me, is it sinning? As I understand "sin", neither scenario qualifies.
So, you think that morality is evolutionary?
I think the origins of morality come from evolution, but let's not discount the role minds have played in broadening our understanding it. There was a time slavery was considered morally acceptable, but we know better now.
If a group of cavemen decided, oh if we act this way, things work out better for us, that's not them discovering morality, that is just them acting on it. The morality was always there.
That is unclear to me. How does morality predate social beings?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There are subjectively good things, and subjectively bad things, yes?Now my question is how do we know that murder is actually bad? Why is insulting someone actually bad? Why does insulting someone hurt their feelings, and not boost it? Why are we as humans wired that way?Isn't it crazy how all humans are wired in a way, where all of our moral conscience, moral instinct if you will, is lined up almost to perfection?
As previously discussed, our moral conscience isn't lined up to perfection. Our morality is somewhat centered on what keeps the population together (ie. Cooperation, empathy, compassion) , but definitely not perfectly so.
If this was the case you would have to argue that morality is evolutionary, but I don't see any animals enacting any moral law into their everyday lives.
You need to broaden your horizons. Their are tons of examples of other social species consistently acting in seemingly moral ways. Link
And there could be more answers I'm open to new ideas, but the answer I think fits best and explains it the most, is something wired us this way, unnaturally.
Observations of animal morality argue against that.
My question basically asks, why are good things good, and bad things bad.
Because our species realized long ago that living with others has advantages over survival alone thus maintaining the group is beneficial to the individual. Morality isn't personal. Good things are what help maintain social cohesion. Bad things don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
will of God is justsubjectivism on a cosmic scale, it isn't objectivism.
Well said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Who or what chose what was good and what was bad? Where do you get your moral conscience from?
Why do you think someone or something (arbitrarily?) *chose* good and bad? I don't think that.
I think individuals who didn't conform to what we now consider good and bad (ie. were harmful to the population in someway) were outcast from primitive societies. Essentially, primitive populations defined good and bad through their actions over time (regarding individuals detrimental to the cohesion of society) rather than their conscious decisions. Our conscience, which is part nature and and part nurture, is reliant on this legacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes, and you're saying that you don't think morality is objective.
Or am I?
I'm open to morality being objective. What I object to is objective morality needing a divine authority. The absence of a divine basis doesn't necessarily make morality subjective. If that's what you believe, we can address that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
you can’t speak of what we “ought to do” without including humanity in the definition of objective.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Lol, no. I haven't read your arguments in the debate though, so there's still hope! 😄
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I see no reason to think Morality is any less objectively real than mathematics.
I thought I had responded to you already. Apologies.
While I agree with your statement, I wonder why is mathematics considered objective? It would not and could not exist without a mind. You seem to have a good grasp of this distinction, so maybe you can explain it to me! 🙂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Objective means external from the individual or existing independent from human opinions or perceptions (or in spite of them). This doesn't disallows change in any way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What does this have to do with objective morality? It seems you went off the rails.Morality mean right and wrong..............not the exact definition but you get it.
Yes, I get what you're saying, but the point I'm making is regarding objective morality.
There are subjectively wrong things.There are subjectively right things.
Subjectivity is the opposite of objectivity. I don't have any issue with your statement except that it doesn't address the subject of objective morality -at least, not in a way I understand. Please clarify or we can drop this part of the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What I am saying, is that every human being has a moral conscience, that a lines with everyone else's.
Except it has been established that is not true. Ie. Sociopathy, mental issues, etc.
There are subjectively wrong things.There are subjectively right things.
What does this have to do with objective morality? It seems you went off the rails.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
The claim looks at how morality may exist without God and comes to the conclusion that everything that would influence morality (i.e. science, evolution, sympathy, etc.) can change and/or does change - making morality subjective because morality never needs to stay the same.
This is a non-sequitor. Something can be mutable AND objective. Eg. Objective reality
What do you think would demonstrate the sentence (morality can not exist without God) as true?
I don't know. Do you?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sure. It is fairly common for Communion to be blessed. The wine is just alcoholic water. If you're Baptist (and probably a few other denominations) the grape juice is flavored water. Also, anytime a meal is blessed, wouldn't that include the drinks already at the table?
Water is regularly blessed and consumed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Depends what you mean by safest and best, as many European countries are secular and without a majority belief in God.
It also depends on what you mean by Christian countries. There is too much wiggle room in this statement to warrant a serious response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I like Matt Dillahunty’s take on it: the foundation of a moral code is subjective, but what proceeds from that foundation can be objective.
Yes, I agree. That description fits reality as I understand it. I don't think he qualifies that as objective morality though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You've neglected to address my refutation and argumentation. Feel free to try again. Link Otherwise, I have no time to waste on dishonest tactics and/or interlocutors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
They are humans born with a mental disorder. They are not normal humans.
Mental issues are part of the human condition. 20% of humanity has mental issues every year.
A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it's weak
If by "basic moral conscience" you mean the conscience of a sociopath, then...uh...sure. This isn't doing a lot to support your conclusion though. Nor does it explain how a *normal* person's right and wrong are objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I'm not talking about mental illnesses. I'm talking about all humans as a whole. Normal everyday humans.
Sociopaths are normal everyday humans. You don't get to discount ~4.5% of the population because they break your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I'm open to the possibility. Just be aware, I will need long argument times due to my work schedule. I would prefer a week per inning.
That being said, what proposition did you have in mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Its the best standard that increases life, ensures survival and makes best societies in the world.
I don't think the standard you prefer does that. At best, it might do that for those who think like you. However, the fact that your standard assumes an 'us vs. them' means it is divisive and literally the opposite of what is required of morality. Eg. If it causes humans to NOT get along, it's not morality.
Unless of course you prefer murders, rape, depression, suicides and abortions. Do you prefer murders, rape, depression, suicides and abortions?
First, humanity existed and flourished long before the god of the Bible was 'revealed'. Secondly, its almost like you've never read the Bible. The Bible contains plenty of god-condoned murder, rape, and even abortion. So, humanity can and has functioned without your holy book, AND your holy book is not absent these things. That's a horrible point you made there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes, all humans are born with the basic moral conscience.
I guess you've never heard of sociopaths?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Also, the atheists have terrible morality.
It depends on what standard you're using. By a particular subjective understanding of 'what God wants', I'm sure atheists have terrible morality. That being said, why should we use that particular standard besides you personally finding it meaningful?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It's actually. with divine authority, you cannot have objective morality.
Did you mean to say objective morality and divine authority do not go together?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Would you say morality is subjective, objective, or some type of hybrid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
All humans agree on a basic moral belief. All humans share the same basic moral conscience.
Except *all* humans don't. If the premises of your argument are built from absolute descriptions (which are demonstrably false), your conclusion can't possibly be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
100% true!
Not an argument. Since you were the person I quoted, I was hoping for more from you. 🙂
Created:
Posted in:
Without divine authority, you cannot have objective morality.
I'm not convinced that is true. I'm also not convinced morality need be objective to function. Convince me.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Without divine authority, you cannot have objective morality.
I'm not convinced that is true. I'm also not convinced morality need be objective to function.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I believe that the LGBT community and ideology is not healthy for society
You might as well be saying 'the blue-eyed community and ideology is not healthy for society'. Just because something runs contrary to your ideology doesn't mean it is a competing ideology or detrimental to society.
An ideology that goes against science,
LGBTQ isnt against science anymore than heterosexuality is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You say it like it's an error on my part.
Not at all! You've made it so you can't be wrong. 'Trump is innocent and he might be convicted.' Brilliant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Indictment is basically just impeachment in likelihood of leading to jail time. I don't know why these people keep getting excited about it.
I would tend to agree. I think some folks are overly excited. Indictment is not the same thing as conviction. Trump still has to be shown guilty.
Created: