Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Lol!
Ol' Steve has a little problem understanding figures of speech Melcharaz. Use simple English and you'll be fine with him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It's like you don't even read the posts you try to respond to.
Since you're slow, I'll ask again.
What makes you think I owe you? You never show anything, so why do you think you can ask me to show you anything?
If you make a claim you owe anyone reading here an explanation when your stupid childish claims are challenged.
Then why do you dodge when your lame claims are challenged? Follow your own advice homer.
...you start an argument with me personally , and on someone else's thread rather than attempting supporting your own claims.
Lie. If you weren't stalking me, I'd hardly ever speak to you. You're empty of substance.
But, just as I thought, once challenged to support your stupid claims and backward childish statements, you fail miserably and fall at the first fence.
Exactly why you no longer make those stupid threads you were churning out before I shamed you.
...start answering some questions concerning your own pathetic claims
Your lame threads are still there with your dodges front and center. Follow your own advice jedthro.
Now why don't you show from the bible where the lord god tells us he wants to "save us from death" and where he tells us he loves us?
You tell me first whether Mopac is a sheep. Dodgers get tossed jedthro. When you follow your own advice and answer questions, you'll get respect. Till then, stop asking me to do what you do not.
Hypocrite much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Didn't I tell you the loser would keep making sock puppets and spamming for longer than weeks?
To rationalize his compulsion, he's now going to delude himself into believing his sock puppetry is him campaigning tirelessly to expose those who use institutions to hide behind their weaknesses, prejudices and bigotry in order to manipulate others for their own nefarious, self-centered ends.
OCD is real, and it has real consequences
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Thanks Supa. Ditto to you.
(If anyone is wondering, I am aware that there are plenty of Ethan haters out there.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not running, still waiting.
For what you claim you cannot perceive. That is stupid Z-man.
Nonetheless....Why do you think that a god needs praying to?
Why do you think that I think God needs praying to? Your obsession has corrupted your ability to think clearly.
Wouldn't an omni-god be aware of your undying commitment?
My praying to God has nothing to do with God's omniscience. Think with your brain, not your bias.
I sure that an omni-god would rather that you were safely tucked up in bed with Mrs Ethan at this time of day.
Luckily for me, my God left a book telling me of what He'd rather, so I don't have to depend on some confused atheist telling me what God would rather.
Anyway time to go now and think about more important business.
Drone to other religion sites huh? Have fun.
God willing as you might say.
Or till your god obsession drags you back here to once again drone about how there isn't one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That must be why you're currently chasing me around the site. What, "frustrated" wasn't working for you so now you're going to try bigotry?
I've run through a dozen yokels like you Zed. Somehow you become fixated with me and think you can take me down.
You will lose. Unless you get your bearings and stabilize yourself, you will lose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Check me out.
I just asked you to sit down and shut up.
I never say "there is no god", that is what you say I say.
Yeah. You think you've found an unassailable little fortress in your "external god" silliness. I take your meaning, not your semantics.
It is you that makes the bold claims without providing proof.
And yet its you in the minority! No one owes you proof jasper. I found mine without you. Why do you need me?
Such frustration Mr Ethan...
Yeah, and after you convince the board by your childish repetition I'm frustrated, how will that help you?
You should be tucked up in bed by now with Mrs Ethan and not fretting over an insignificant web debate.
The only one fretting is you Z. You seem fixated on god to the point you come to a religion board and pretend you cause people there frustration.
I'm a theist. I'm on a religion board. If anyone should not be fretting over an insignificant web debate, its you.
I believe in God. You say you don't. Which of us should find this insignificant?
Sit down and shut up. We get you. We've heard you repeat your drone incessantly.
We aren't going to change because you are confused. No amount of repetition of your sophistry will convince us to abandon good sense
Go find a site where atheists seeking truth claim to have found it, and let us who believe discuss the topics we like. That is what a content person would do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Lie. I successfully avoid your "truth".And you sit here day after day hopelessly struggling to avoid the truth,
With no coherent proof of the god you are so certain of.
And yet the world keeps contradicting you, and converts keep growing. Frustrating isn't it?
And I can sense that you are angry ,lost, frustrated and confused.
Can you sense that yours is the loony fringe position too? You are the typical European atheist who has allowed the atheist bubble in which he lives, confuse him into thinking the world is like his bubble.
Though proof be none.
You stupidly believe because you cannot see proof, no one else can. Why? I still think its because you are terrified. You you dismiss the hundreds of thousands finding proof every day, to cling to your little shelter.
And when such evidence might manifest itself, that we might be certain of the external god.
I'm certain. Why aren't you? Ah! Maybe its because you believe nothing external can be perceived.
Perhaps then we might both find contentment.
I'm content. Notice I didn't have to seek you out on some atheist website and harass you about God?
The atheist that seeketh the truth doth not deny, but only seeketh
If you seek the truth only inside your data processor, you won't find it jasper. It isn't there. The truth doesn't reside between your ears.
When you're no longer terrified to come out of your little materialist hidey-hole, you may one day find truth and be content.
Till then, keep asking to be shown what you claim you are unable to see, it may dawn on you one day that running way is silly when no one is chasing you.
Scuse me while I go pray to my God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sophistry is what you spout.
You are trapped in your obsession of "there is no God", we aren't. So when we want to explore other topics, please let us.
You are confused if you believe you can stop a religion board from religious discussion because you are obsessed with a single topic.
You've told us you don't believe. We do. You've told us you cannot perceive anything outside your internal data processor. We can. Asking us for what you admit you cannot perceive is idiocy.
Unless you progress past mere repetition and sophistry, what is there to discuss with you? You've shot your load. Now sit down, shut up, and let the adults talk.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Immigrants are paying for houses, rent etc. They are not squatters.
This is the red herring, to get us talking about how much the invader pays rather than how he should not be there in the first place. What he pays is immaterial.
They are not squatters.
They ARE squatters. They have illegally entered our house and are trying to stay against our will.
They are also paying taxes when they are completely unable to receive any services for those taxes they are paying.
You can't be this stupid. How can a squatter tell you he he deserves services because he paid some of your light bill? Did we ask them for assistance? He broke in, pretended to be owner of the house, and paid the light bill. That doesn't entitle him to any service.
But the right loves to whine about how much money immigrants cost america, then want to quickly change the subject when you point out how much money america makes in taxes off of them when they can't draw on any of the services they are paying taxes for.
Because the idea that illegal squatters deserve service simply because they played is ludicrous. You want to talk about what they pay because you subscribe to the ridiculous notion that paying taxes somehow erases their illegal squatter status.
Your argument appears to be to target the poor people trying to earn a living.
Please stop the dishonesty. I am targeting people who have broken the law. Being poor does not excuse you. Thousands of poor people never become criminals.
But they aren't the problem.
They definitely are one of the problems.
The problem is the thousands of american companies that love to hire them and exploit them.
They get fake ID's and false documents to do so. Are they responsible for their own behavior? But still, this is a separate problem. The companies cannot exploit them until they have entered illegally.
If you actually cared about stopping illegal immigrants, you would be advocating for the imprisonment of the people hiring them and exploiting them.
Dumb. If there were no illegal aliens, there would be no one to hire and exploit.
...trump would be on that list.
So would many of your liberal idols who would have been fooled by the fake ID's and hampered by liberal policies that make it illegal to demand verification of citizenship.
this assumes that the immigration system is in any way tied to market forces, which it isn't. It is controlled by a partisan political system.
You must mean democrats. But everything is tied to the market system.
So this is absolutely not what would happen.
You must not have taken economics in college. That is exactly what would happen.
..the price of american food products would go up
First, American food products are already generally higher than foreign products because of higher wages and higher quality. Second, food prices are always going up anyway.
Making foreign food products much more cost effective. No one would buy american food products....
That is a logical leap. Fewer people would buy American food products, not no one. And the market would adjust by reducing prices.
and large segments of the american agriculture industry would collapse, as well as lots of other industries.
Bolderdash. The American food industry is huge with many different companies. The market would simply produce less to cut cost and increase demand, or newer, smaller companies will innovate, but demand will be met by American business.
...neither republican politicians nor the democratic establishment actually give a shit about immigrants or working class people in general.
True, but republicans don't want them here draining the resources of our country and bastardizing our culture, while democrats don't mind killing the country to use illegal immigrants for a political leg up.
Are you ok with all of america's industries being shipped overseas?
Isn't this glorious? HB is advocating Trumps argument! Both you and Trump don't want American industries shipped overseas, AND think illegal immigrants are the way to prevent that. You and Trump agree. Imagine that!
America's industries moved overseas because they were hogtied by the business hostile policies of liberals.
We do not need illegal immigrants to be great. That is just a lie democrats tell. Our businesses would not collapse if illegals were kept out. The market, as always, would adjust and adapt. The government, if it had sensible policies like Trump practices, would protect local industries from dumping by 3rd world countries, and America would be fine.
But bottom line, the point that liberals want to avoid at any cost, is that illegal immigrants should not be in country, and their being here does not entitle them to any government service except free transportation back to their home country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Whateveryou'recallingyoursockpuppettoday
You have been banned from every site you dishonestly campaigned tirelessly to expose those who use institutions to hide behind their weaknesses, prejudices and bigotry in order to manipulate others for their own nefarious, self-centered ends...
The problem is you, not every moderated site on the web.
...and will continue to do so.
And you will continue to be banned till you wake up from your OCD fueled delusion.
Created:
The whole "immigrants pay taxes" argument is red herring nonsense.
Imagine you find a squatter having broken into your basement, using your water, gas, and electricity, and when you try to kick him out, some idiot tells you he helps pay you utility bills, so he has a right to stay.
What he pays is immaterial. Did America tell anyone that it needed help to pay its taxes? The only salient point is that the squatter has no right to be in your house without your permission, whatever he "pays". So all a B&E artist has to do to force you to let him remain in your house is to pay a little bit of your bills?
Where do liberals get these completely inane arguments?
We have a market driven economy. If we didn't have illegal immigrants, demand for farm workers would go up, and the corresponding pay would go up, so we would have more legal immigration and more Americans go into the sector till there was a balance of supply with demand.
Food prices would go up, but would not go higher than the market could sustain, and demand for farm workers would correspondingly fall to balance falling demand for high foodstuffs.
Liberals are playing a political game because they know they can't win elections without poor, uninformed, people looking for handouts.
Created:
Posted in:
More than a year later, cheers to Virtuoso and Ragnar and the new mod team.
The religion board bigots have fallen away one by one. The politics board has managed to keep the racists at bay. The owner's new updates are going to draw in new blood.
Dart is in a good place.
Created:
Posted in:
OK. You've told me twice, and I've told you I know twice now. I've answered you. I said,...If they were actually making this assumption then you would be right. What I am doing is pointing out that they are not making such an assumption.
Then they aren't making such a point either. Their position is incoherent because without the assumption, there is no contradiction with the OP's point.
If they are playing devil's advocate to show an inconsistency, they fail because there is no inconsistency without the assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Was I? I didn't notice.
We noticed. The board was pleasant in your absense.
I have been away.
You were supposed to think about your behavior while you were away.
Now stick to the thread and start answering some questions concerning your own claims and comments.
You never do. Why do you expect of me what you don't do?
Or will you return to form and start rudely derailing someone else's thread when challenged on your own claims.
Make a thread and we'll see. There is a reason you were away.
God wants to save you from death.
Cross thread contamination Jasper.
Now why don't you show from the bible where the lord god tells us he wants to "save us from death" and where he tells us he loves us?
Why? What makes you think I owe you? You never show anything, so why do you think you can ask me to show you anything?
Tick, tocking is childish. No one is on your clock jasper. Grow up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I always know the right direction.
But bullies and trolls self-destruct on their own. I just nudge them to make the process faster.
Look at this thread, where are disgusted and goldtop?
Thanks for the link "The Legend Of Korra" it isn't what I would usually watch, but I watched with what you said in mind and enjoyed it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It's a lowly job Etrnl, but someone has to do it.
I noticed you got some of our more colorless trolls in the .jpg too, (the gray goo in the green trash bin)
Hope the fame doesn't go to their heads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm still awaiting proof.
And you will keep waiting as long as you request that you cannot perceive.
But that is exactly what you want isn't it? Like the racist asking for proof of an intelligent black man, you don't want that for which you claim to be requesting.
We know because no sane person requests that which they claim doesn't exist. You are scared and incoherent.
But I was on my religion board minding my business and talking with others who believe. You came here, claiming to be atheist, yet besotted with an obsession for that you say is imaginary.
No one owes you anything. If your life is so satisfactory, what are you doing here repeating the silliness that God doesn't exist, over and over to people who disagree?
Go be happy in your atheism.
But you aren't happy are you? You're angry, lost, frustrated, and confused. So you sit here, day after day, begging for someone to convince you, to convert you, but you are terrified of being wrong.
Main while, you have to search us out to drone out your inane mantra, as we generally ignore you and just keep happily worshipping our God, as you pretend your lack of belief is our reality.
We get on the God train and leave, as you sit at the station alone going "choo! choo!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Let me try it....
God is what a God is and is just an arrangement of acquired data.
Tadaaaa! Sophistry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
That is the inevitable end of strict materialism. Completely incomprehensible and contradictory nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@philochristos
You were that rare breed on internet forums, intelligent, humorous, and emotionally stable, all make you easy to remember.
Now my greatness is even more obvious!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The thread title is "The Problems with Moral Relativism"
You are a moral relativist, yet you have not rebutted a single point in the OP. You haven't even addressed one.
That is like a racist asking to be shown an intelligent black man. One just knows he isn't going to see one no matter what is shown him. If he believes no intelligent black men exist, why would he think the doctor/lawyer/professor/scientist before him is an intelligent black man? He wouldn't.
What the racist should do, to prove his point, is to take a challenge he claims a black man cannot beat him in. That would settle it.
So, since we are far apart, and anonymous, it has to be a challenge that would get in the news so we all know who won.
Is there something you and this alleged God can compete on so we settle this? How about,....
Curing a famous person of the Corona virus infection? Can you do that?
Or maybe that is too specific? How about just getting a story into the international news? Choose your subject, the first person to get it done wins.
Does that sound fair?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I can perceive the screen in front of me.
Please don't lie. You can only perceive random acquired data that your brain interprets as an external screen. The screen itself you never perceive.
And if you can show me a god I will be able to perceive that also.
You mean that your brain will interpret the acquired data as an external God? But did you not say that could not be done?
I get the sinking suspicion that your responses here hold no respect for truth.
I would only show God to you if I disliked God. But I like God. So it looks like you're stuck with your acquired data from nowhere that means nothing.
Scuse me, I have to go talk with my external God. Shuffle your data around till I get back, OK?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you come back from your ride in the black party van having learned nothing?
There Is no cure for blinkered stupidity.
But bans do help us manage it nicely.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And if those fetal invaders share your DNA, worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I met Bobby Mc. When he was teaching in Philly. Memories.
I asked. You answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
...what I think about random stupid sh*t
So what do you think about random stupid sh*t?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You only have your subjective internal senses, you cannot perceive anything external....when is anyone in the Dart god club going to give me proof of an external god?
Stop asking for things you've told us you cannot perceive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@philochristos
It was well deserved. You were humorous and constructive when you used to post more. I hope this means your participation is about to increase.
How is Aristotle?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
But the little baby in her womb, whose only "crime" was that of being concieved, should be killed.
That people can't see the abject evil of this position is terrifying. Every prediction Jesus made about loss of morality to come is being realized before our eyes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@zedvictor4
Zed is terrified of finding out you are right Etrnl.
Hey Z-man, Etrnl is saying, even if you feel he is wrong and you are right, what harm is there in exploring concepts? Is this not a discussion board?
If your response is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "there is no God", why are you here at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I see no reason for that to change just because the sapient beings in question are digital rather than flesh and blood.
OK. That is logically consistent.
They would not be valid just because some person said they are, that would be silly.
So far, we've been using you as a moral proxy for the scientist.
What if we looked at it now from the POV of the digital entities?
1a. Would it be moral for the digital AI's to kill the scientist to stop him from shutting down the server?
2a. If the AI's decided to experiment on a few people in such a way that caused them to experience great suffering, would that be immoral?
3a. If a the AI's notice that humans have developed weapons and begun to use those weapons to kill other humans, are the AI's morally obligated to stop them?
I look forward to you posting your own answers to these questions.
Sure, that's only fair. Here you go.
1. No. It would be immoral only under a moral code that deemed causing "suffering" to be immoral. So if the scientist did not subscribe to such a code, he would not be being immoral.
2. No. Same answer as question #1. The scientist could be experimenting on the AI's for a good that is greater than the suffering caused. And any moral code that categorizes suffering as immoral is not only unlivable, it is incoherent.
3. Yes. The moral code developed by the created AI could not apply to the scientist. The scientist does not become morally obligated to their code upon the AI's creation.
They, on the other hand, are obligated by the scientists code. Even if for only the practical reasons that the scientist has more knowledge and control of their universe and can thus make better moral judgments.
4. No. Why would he be? If he did forcibly stop them, the scientist would be forcing the AI to observe his moral code above their own, a moral violation of his own code. If he can stop them without violating their moral volition, then he would be amoral in stopping them.
5. My answer to #1 is No.
Neither the AI's sentience or it's ability to feel suffering morally obligates the scientist in any way to keep them "alive".
The idea that the scientist instantly becomes morally obligated to his creation upon creation, is illogical and impractical.
And is even more illogical and impractical if the context is that all morality is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If they were actually making this assumption then you would be right. What I am doing is pointing out that they aren't making such an assumption.
Then they aren't making such a point either. Their position is incoherent because without the assumption, there is no contradiction with the OP's point.
And I still see no internal inconsistency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
to be sentient and to be sapient are two entirely different things
They can be, but for the purposes of this topic, I don't see the relevance. What answers would have changed if the AI entities were only sentient?
Yes, assuming the AIs have a desire to continue existing.
Why would their desire obligate the scientist?
If the scientist decided to experiment on a few of his AI entities in such a way that caused them to experience great suffering, would that be immoral?
Yes.
Why?
What do you mean by different?
Does one lack moral authority? Does one carry an ought?
If by different you mean more or less valid then that would depend on the specific laws in question.
On what standard are you basing your judgement on the specific laws in question?
Yes, assuming he can easily do so.
Why is he morally obligated to do so?
The hypothetical AIs sapience is what would cause me to give a yes answer to question one.
What is the connection between the AI's sapience and the scientists moral obligation? Why does their sapience obligate him?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
When someone invokes the problem of evil they are assuming for the sake of argument that morals are derived from a supreme being in order to demonstrate an internal inconsistency in the idea,
And what exactly is that internal inconsistency?
Then they are being incoherent. Because God can exist in the absence of objective evil. The POE does not stipulate the existence of objective evil....they don't necessarily believe themselves that an objective evil exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ouch Z-man. Will you come back from this? Zed?I'm attempting to have you grasp that your concept of an external reality is logically incoherent...
Why is this data "acquired" not "created"?
Yeah! And from whom is it acquired? Some external being?
Why would a logical incoherence demand proof?
Yeah Zed. Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If you're allowed to speak nonsense, i too can speak nonsense.
So I'm your standard? Cool. At least you are aware you're speaking nonsense.
It's religion forum. No one has ever been wrong.
Another example of your common sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It probably is not invalid for someone to take a for-the-sake-of-argument view on something to make a point, but is #3's point itself incorrect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If your posts are examples of what you call common sense, then you're right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Saturday 7.30 am and no need to get up quite so early.
It wasn't too early for you to dodge his points. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Hi, Athias. You're back!
I'm going to entertain your "tats" for my "tits" anymore.
Yeah you said that already. You can only make a dramatic exit once.
Enjoy your day, sir.
I always do A. I would say the same to you except I know cynics are full of angst, and therefore, basically unhappy. So I'll say instead, try to enjoy your day.
Created:
Posted in:
Consider this....
A scientist creates in his lab, an artificial intelligence that has true sentience. It learns, laughs, and can feel suffering.
The scientist, amazed and enchanted, creates many of these AI entities (as only digital persons) on his server.
One day he realizes that his AI entities have started to reproduce other entities in what could be analogous to birth in humans.
So he simply starts to observe them, enthralled at their growth, and interaction.
Soon, the AI develop societies and culture, they form a morality and a religion, and their numbers are increasing. One day, to his surprise, the digital AI's have formed governments.
These AI's have a life span of about 2 months, but their time perception is very fast. So they can cram into that 2 month lifespan, what we get in our 80 or so years.
Here are the questions fro you.
1. If the scientist should turn off the server, it would "kill" every AI sentient "person" in it. Would it be immoral for him to do so?
2. If the scientist decided to experiment on a few of his AI entities in such a way that caused them to experience great suffering, would that be immoral?
3. If the scientist decided to give his AI some "moral" laws, one of which was, "Do not damage the Server." Would that "moral" law be any different from the "moral" laws the AI's have developed themselves?
4. If a few of the AI's develop weapons and begin to use those weapons to extinguish/kill other AI entities, is the scientist morally obligated to stop them?
5. If your answer to question #1 is "yes", please tell us as precisely as you can, whether it is the AI's sentience or it's ability to feel suffering that more morally obligates the scientist to keep them "alive".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Zed? Zed?
Where are you Zed?
Are you processing the data? Looking for a way to dodge Athias' point?
Zed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
A sampling from just one post (obviously not yours), "stupid" "sluts" "floozy's."
Of course, calling people misogynists and women haters are not insults when the liberal does it.
If I've missed the same level of insults later leveled at men for engaging in sex for purposes other than making babies,
You do this sort of fakery often, and Dread called you on it. No one has insulted women for engaging in sex. That's just semantical fakery you made up.
Women who engage in voluntary sex and then want to claim that the resultant baby is a foreign invader were insulted. Their behavior is atrocious.
You aren't concerned about the insults, but like a true liberal, your problem was that men were not similarly insulted. Men do not kill little babies growing in their bellies. The insults were to the people deserving insult for their behavior.
Insults are not supposed to be politically correct.
You have skipped through this thread hop-scotching around questions walking the line between obtuse and outright dishonesty.
You did it to BND, to Athias, and to Dread, that I noticed. Why can you not answer questions put to you? Why do you lie when you "restate" the positions of others? How come your derogatory remarks are not insults?
It's commendable that you, a mod, are taking part in a forum discussion, and you did try to respond to everyone, but the way you sacrifice honesty over your leftist dogma harms your mod street cred.
You are a much better mod than debater
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It has more relevance than that, and I decide it's relevance, not you.
No, the subject of your topic determines relevance--not you.
I decide the subject of my topic, and I decide relevance to me, your disagreement is immaterial.
I'm complicit in your derailment since I'm entertaining it, certainly.
Thank you.
...you're hinging this entire argument on this farce of a back and forth alleging that my "cynicism" on the subject of marriage leaves you the impression that I'm emotionally incapable of carrying out a rational discussion.
No. You don't pay attention. You're so convinced that you're always logical, you fail to critically examine your positions.
I called you cynical before you expressed your views on marriage. In post #10 of this thread I said,
Your view here is very cynical, akin to calling marriage, prostitution. You think it's to exploit panic, but that is because to you, everything is politics.
You then went on in subsequent posts, to validate my judgment that you were hopelessly cynical, with that disjointed rant against "legal" marriage.
You could have dropped the tangent anytime you wanted. So please, your whining about it now is disingenuous.
However, let's avoid any pretenses that our views on marriage is at all relevant to the subject you brought up.
Your cynicism is relevant to your ability to rationally debate the subject I brought up.
It's clear that you are avoiding the defense of your position.
"Clear" to whom? You mean it "seems" that way to you. I countered every point you brought up. You simply insisted you were correct, using your royal privilege. Or you spouted some single word logical fallacy as if you were grading a paper and did not need to justify your opinion.
...you are arguing that this "panic" should be exploited to make a point to the governors...
You placed "panic" in quotes because you are not yet dishonest enough to deny that you are the one calling it a panic.
I'm not even talking about the corona virus epidemic. My case against the governors and states was valid before anyone was infected in America.
..you clearly expressed knowing how I think. You are once again projecting.
You told me how you think A! I pay attention to what my opponents say, and I take them seriously.
While that itself is questionable...
It isn't questionable.
I questioned it.
I have intimate experience with the manner in which I submit arguments. Whether you believe this or not is of no consequence.
I believe you have intimate experience with the manner in which you submit arguments. I just know you are not always logical.
Non sequitur. Never mentioned "truth."
I did. Does it surprise you that I can mention things you didn't? So what if your argument is logically sound but not true? I'm concerned with true arguments, not logical wordplay.
I practice logical consistency consistently; "esteem" is of no consequence.
Another demonstration of your ignorance of human nature. Esteem is vitally important to logical consistency. But I am not trying to convince you, nor do I need your approval.
Then there's no need for "but."
If they aren't necessarily, then there are times when they are, as when autism impedes ones ability to understand people.
Your observation is full of crap, and nothing more than a ploy to qualify my arguments by alleging disability. That's the reason it's an ad hominem.
Your observation, of course, is royally immune from being crap. Playing the victim doesn't become you, and such ploys never work on me. Reality does not reside between your ears.
But given that I'm the sole authority on my outlook and perspective, I could in fact tell you that you're wrong because I say so.
You can tell me, but since your telling me does not make me wrong, I can dismiss your perspective as subjective crap.
I'm not concerned with your motivations; I'm concerned with your argument;
The fact that you entertained a tangent shows you are a poor judge of your concerns.
...and your argument is petty; the subject is political. Draw whatever conclusions you want.
I did draw the conclusion I wanted, and you appear to be unhappy that I did.
I'm not concerned with your experience. I'm concerned with the legal framework surrounding marriage.
And I was concerned with marriage. How many couples do you think are thinking of a "legal framework" when they marry? My experience informs my knowledge. It does not change because you lack concern.
Your view on marriage is cynical. It is cynical because YOU are cynical. Your cynicism pervades this argument about governors and sanctuary cities. These are simple facts borne out by the things you've said. No one is insulting you or derailing anything.
Your royalty simply isn't recognized here.
...that which I "think" about your intentions is irrelevant.
Then why have you wasted your last 3 posts telling me that which you "think" about my intentions?
But entertain it I will since we've already gone this far with it.
I'm not going to continue this discussion on marriage....
Good. I told you that you could drop it anytime you wanted.
I will only entertain discussion on the matter you discussed in the O.P. If not, then have a nice day.
I've addressed every point you raised against the OP. If you have no rebuts, I have nothing to add.
And I have already said your cynicism makes you unable to rationally discuss the OP's topic. Perhaps it is best you quit before you fall further behind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Any thoughts on the 3 problems mentioned in the OP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You missed every point in the OP and repeated your mantra of "acquired stored and utilised data". I guess you're our new Mopac.
Hopefully there are monasteries for secular fundamentalists too.
Created:
Posted in:
Moral Truth – The Problems with Moral Relativism
Problem 1: Moral relativism suffers from what is known as the reformer’s dilemma. If moral relativism is true, then societies cannot have moral reformers. Why? Moral reformers are members of a society that stand outside that society’s moral code and pronounce a need for reform and change in that code. For example, Corrie ten Boom risked her life to save Jews during the Holocaust. William Wilberforce sought the abolition of slavery in the late 18th century. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for civil rights in the U.S. If moral relativism is true, then these reformers were immoral. You see, if an act is right if and only if it is in keeping with a given society’s code, then the moral reformer himself is by definition an immoral person. Moral reformers must always be wrong because they go against the code of their society. But such a view is defective for we all know that real moral reform has taken place!
Problem 2: Moral relativists cannot improve their morality. Neither cultures nor individuals can improve their morality. The only thing they can do is change it. Think of what it means to improve something. Improvement means becoming better at something. But becoming better at something requires an external standard of comparison. To improve a society’s moral code means that the society changes its laws and values closer to an external ideal. If no such standard exists, then there is no way for the new standard to be better than the original; they can only be different. A society can abolish apartheid (racism) in favor of equality. A society can provide equal rights for women. It can guarantee freedom of speech and the press. But according to moral relativism, these are mere changes, not improvements. The Nazis used moral relativism as a defense for their crimes at the Nuremberg trials. The court condemned them because they said there is a law above culture.
Problem 3: Moral relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil. The problem of evil is one of the most commonly raised objections to the existence of God. Some of the great atheists— Bertrand Russell, David Hume, H.G. Wells— concluded on the basis of the evil and suffering in the world that the God of the Bible must not exist (genocide, child abuse, suicide bombings). The common argument is that if God was all-good and all-powerful he would deal with evil. But evil exists, so God must not. The force of this objection rests upon moral evil being real and some things being objectively wrong. But such a claim is peculiar if we understand the nature of evil. Evil is a perversion of good. There can be good without evil, but not evil without good. There can be right without wrong, but not wrong unless there is first right. If morality is ultimately a matter of personal tastes, like ice cream flavor, the argument against God’s existence based on evil vanishes. If evil is real, then so is absolute good, which means moral relativism is false.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I got that reference! One could get an education just reading your posts.I give you a Madman carrying a lantern, proclaiming "I seek Dog."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You allege that I'm cynical; once again, "skeptical" is more apropos.
You think "skeptical" is more, apropos, your thoughts on marriage show that cynicism is more correct.
You have yet to demonstrate this cynicism,....
You demonstrated it yourself. And yes, I know you don't think you did.
...not that it has any relevance outside of your capacity to let me know how you feel.
It has more relevance than that, and I decide it's relevance, not you. Either way, letting you know how I feel should be an aid to mutual understanding.
And this isn't about rational contributions, this is about derailment.
"This" is always what you say it is, right? Royal pronouncements don't work with me A. You admitted entertaining this tangent. If it is derailment, it's you doing the derailment.
I brought up the topic. I made the thread, why would I derail what I brought up?
You're the one who argued exploiting a "panic"...
No sir. You're the one who claimed it was an argument to exploit a panic. You may not be able to see the difference, but it is there never-the-less.
...in order to make a point about "patriotism," which is just a circumventing reference to obedience.
This again is your cynicism coloring your perspective. You even think you know my intent. As long as your cynicism colors your perspective, you will simply interpret everything through its prism, like you do with marriage.
Justifying the withholding of federal officers outside of your emotional capacity.
Federal officers, to my knowledge, have always been, and will always be, outside of my emotional capacity. Whatever that means.
"Legal" is an important qualifier.
OK. You think "legal" marriage is prostitution.
Seem is neither an argument, nor an observation. It's your impression; and impressions are irrelevant.
I do not think impressions are irrelevant. And I certainly do not think they are irrelevant because you say so. The talking point about "seem" is an old clunker meant to sound better than the usefulness it affords.
My arguments are always logically consistent.
While that itself is questionable, even if true, would not mean your argument are always true. But it shows high esteem to judge the logical consistency of your arguments with an absolute.
How are the two mutually exclusive?
They aren't necessarily.
And I "may" be autistic? No, I'm not autistic. That's just another ad hominem.
How is that an ad hominem? It's like observing that a person is tall. But being autistic can interfere with smooth communication.
My explanation was provided after the fact.
What fact? It was provided after I predicted you would provide it.
...you are alleging this cynicism...
Yes I am, as demonstrated in your comments about marriage, sorry, "legal" marriage. So what? You are alleging exploiting a panic. That is how debates work. Allegations are not wrong because you disagree with them.
I never argued what motivated people to marry. I argued the motivations under legal marriage
OK. And it is your cynicism that causes you to view legal marriage that way, the same cynicism causing you to think my motivation for my suggestion to Trump was petty politics.
My emotional capacity is irrelevant in logical discussion.
If you actually believe this, then you are autistic.
I should have never entertained it because it's an irrelevant tangent. But entertain it I will since we've already gone this far with it.
Entertain whatever you will, but please stop claiming I'm the one trying to derail my own topic when its you entertaining a tangent.
Not everything is win or lose.
Don't remember stating that it was.
I do remember you behaving as though it was.
Couples shouldn't be "in love."
You should be aware this is simply your opinion.
One ought to "love" like one loves a family member,...
Every legally marrying couple should "love" the way you think they should, otherwise it's prostitution. I got you, and I think that view is so cynical, it shows that cynicism has corrupted your logical process, at least with some subjects.
...the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos.
OK. I have not argued against your opinion here. I do know that no one, in all my years of experience, has sought a State's incarnation of "marriage". People marry simply because they love each other and want to be together. There are exceptions of course.
I am not trying to debunk your argument, I'm saying it is besotted with cynicism. Some arguments are so far beyond the pale, they need no debunking.
Now that I know how you think on the threads topic, I don't think there is anything I could say to you that would get past your cynic filters unscathed. And I don't care if you disagree, I expect you to.
It isn't intended as an ad hominem, but I can understand why you would think it was. There is no helping that.
Created: