Total posts: 5,875
-->
@Stephen
Oh you offer, but you never do. I needn't belabor the point, your dodges are there in every thread for all to see.I have offered to answer all your questions on a thread of your own creation.
Why doesn't that surprise me.
Perhaps because you know I am aware that you're a fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Perhaps you mean "lexicon."
No. I actually meant semantic ploy, but I didn't want you to feel insulted.
We're not agreeing to disagree.
OK then. We can disagree to disagree.
They either consented, which doesn't necessarily require explicit verbal consent, or were coerced. Which was it?
Neither. Its a false dichotomy. Semitic ploys are that way.
Do you intend on dropping this point?
No. Semantic ploys do not make me retire.
By the mere fact of your observation of moral law, you're subjecting it to your own perspective. How can you do this without being subjective?
The law is always objective. My behavior may not be.
What else can a moral framework be based on?
Maximization of profit. Minimization of intolerance. Sex. Racism.
You're rendering a conclusion without a substantiated premise.
No. I just think I haven't made you understand what I mean by moral authority.
how do you define materialism?
Same as the dictionary.
My opposing your argument does not mean that I don't understand your argument.
True. But you have not yet opposed my argument.
Correct me where I'm wrong.
I said moral authority justifies the use of power. It is not the of power.
Define reality.
No. If I have to define reality for you our communication ships have already passed each other by.
What is suicide "by police"?
Letting the police shoot you when you're too weak to kill yourself. Police assisted suicide in your lexicon.
But it's definitely not murder.
I don't know of a single DA in any country who agrees with you.
Presumption of dissent in the absence of consent.
There was consent. Just not knowledge about how or when it would be done.
Who made the argument that it was wrong because people "agreed" it was.
You.
Consensus is irrelevant to moral authority.
Non sequitur.
It is not a Non sequitur. And the comment is true.
Oughts are oughts because their normative and prescriptive. Authority is informed by value.
Not moral authority.
What is an "empirical" moral truth?
One that exists outside the mind of man.
There's no contradiction;
Yes. You are contradicting yourself. Most people do not readily see their internal contradictions.
Hence, I did not claim you were wrong.
No, but if I agreed with you I would be.
All arguments are logical.
That has not been my experience.
Yes, when you asked me why it hasn't been adopted by the general populace? Is that the same as saying that it's as "impotent as communism"?
Yes. Impotence is impotence, even when the reasons for the impotence differ.
You're just arguing a false equivalence
I don't think so. The impotence is
equivalent.
And that is?
Moral behavior not based on personal tastes or subjective opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't know what to say. What difference does Bob's feeling have to do with Alex's morality? You may suspect Bob is scared, but so what? Will you haul Alex in on your suspicion?
Bob's feelings is not my focus. It matters not to my argument, it doesn't change Alex's morality. What difference would changing the scenario make?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
No. I have a rule not to start stupid threads....can you start a thread like Stephen and I have done many times?
Your post is empty. Devoid of content. As is common with your posts. If you post nothing, there is nothing for me to respond to. Surely you want responses don't you Dee Dee?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Then lets have em. Stop bragging.
Ethan doesn't brag tyrone. The point is that you dodge all questions, why would I post them again?
I'm sick of your trolling, your bluster and absolute bullshit simply to...
You talk too much and say too little. When you have nothing sensible to say, shut up.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Why haven't you started just one of those "five different threads"
Because you never answer question homer.
...you have been threatening to create.
I don't threaten. I only said I could make 5 threads out of the questions you've dodged.
No you won't Abdul. You'll run as you always do.I will gladly answer you questions on your own thread.
Probably because you can't count and that you're obsessed with me.I haven't missed the fact that you have only ever created 3 threads in the religious sub forum and two of those are not really religious related. Why is that.
Likening you to a world famous fraudulent CHRISTIAN preacher such as Peter Popoff on various topics is....
Cross topic contamination hypocrite.
And it isn't chasing someone around the forum continually harassing and badgering someone with the same fkn question that has nothing to do with this thread AT ALL
In how many posts did you ask "why is that?" In this thread? What? Its not "chasing someone around the forum continually harassing and badgering them with the same fkn question that has nothing to do with this thread AT ALL" when you do it?
...this is you at Post 64 above isn't it?
Dee Dee himself told us about his prostitution ministry doofus. Claims that he has sex with them so he can "witness" to them as they redress. He's a "True Christian" remember?
You won't answer, but expect Christians to answer you.
Of course. Christians do not dodge questions. Because they love the truth, there is no reason to run and hide from scrutiny.
Bitterness will consume you if you don't get a hold of it Jethro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Unlike you. But then foolishness is your forté isn't it?In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As always you ranted your own opinions and pretended they were God's position.How did I do?
Sorry, but I don't think reading some moron atheist's take on Job can substitute for reading the actual work.
But as far as I know, there is no prohibition to dumb opinions. Is anyone trying to stop you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No. But in an open place like a restaurant, where there has been no threat of violence, and an adult clearly says he doesn't mind.... What should we do? Dismiss Bob and arrest Alex anyway? For what?You aren't actually suggesting that coersion is a non-factor which we shouldn't even consider are you?
My point is, if you would stop to think a bit, is that Alex's action can be immoral even if Bob doesn't mind. The morality of Alex's action is not determined by how Bob feels.
I am beginning to have doubts about how seriously you are taking this conversation.
That is out of my control, but I take this convo far more seriously than you suspect.
My argument is unconcerned with how Bob feels. It doesn't matter to the morality of the action of Alex. Only Alex's intent, relationship, and authority matter in trying to determine if his action is moral or immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
They obviously were living their values otherwise they wouldn't have consented to removing their tops in the first place.
They did not "consent". That is just semantics. But we can agree to disagree. The point is not important.
They were not "respecting", they were adapting.
No subjective judgement can be an "ought" for another person.
Why not?
Because no one has to obey the subjective judgement of another. No ones subjective opinion places a burden of obedience on another.
How can a person observe outside his own subjective perspective?
I have never murdered anyone, but I observe the moral law that says killing is immoral.
What is your metric for "true"?
Existing in reality.
Once again, falsehood based on which metric?
It was just an example to show you that a moral code can be based on other things than just a reduction of conflict, so the metric is irrelevant.
Moral agents who adopt free speech place value on free speech.
Then that means it is not authoritative.
I cannot give you anything else.
Sure you can. The fact that you're a materialist does not mean only materials exist.
What informs "truly"?
Reality.
So then this begs the question: from where does the morality you advance source its authority?
Finally! Please allow me to determine whether you understand my argument before we move to the next part.
You've yet to inform what that authoratative morality and true moral behavior is.
I'm not yet trying to. I first have to get you to understand what moral authority is.
The rules are only as "good" as the people who follow them.
In basketball, not in life. Moral authority does not come from consensus.
In order to do so, you must first delineate your metric for "true."
I have.
Yes it does. One is murder; the other is assisted suicide.
Like suicide by police? Sorry, you are wrong. The victim being willing is not "assistance". That again is just semantics.
In some cases, the person did not even know when or how they would killed.
But now your focus is on the legal context, which I thought you were attempting to avoid.
I was not talking about legality at all.
I think that the argument "murder is wrong" would lack a sound premise.
Thank you. My position is that murder is not wrong just because people agree it is.
Consensus is irrelevant to the consistency of rationalization; consensus is relevant to the participation.
Consensus is irrelevant to moral authority.
Your issue is that you're conflating "oughts" with "authority."
"Oughts" are oughts because the are authoritative.
This is a sophistic argument. You are conflating an "empirical truth" with "authority."
I am saying that an empirical moral truth carries MORAL authority.
The specific number or proportion is irrelevant.
I agree and keep telling you so. But you keep contradicting yourself by saying things like, "...authority is informed by the value placed by the participants in a moral framework."
Replace authority with rationalization, and I'd agree with you.
Your agreement is desirable, but not enough for me to be willfully wrong.
And by what standard are you claiming my above comment untrue?
It does not conform to reality.
Your disagreement? Aren't you being incredulous?
No. I'm being logical.
...in the real world, your ideas of individualism are as impotent as communism.
You haven't substantiated that.
Yet when I asked you why it didn't work, you had an answer.
They don't work in reality.
Work toward what?
True moral behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Why is a lack of convent immoral?Lack of consent.
Coersion does not constitute legitimate consent.
We go by what the adult says, not by what we suspect he feels.
..is Alex's action immoral?
No. Remember I said whether Alex's action is moral or immoral has nothing to do with how Bob feels.
Morality is determined by three things. Intent, relationship, and authority. In your example, Alex does not have bad intent because he is aware of Bob's culture. It has nothing to do with how Bob feels.
If by some chance Bob was offended, Alex still would not have acted with bad intent, and would not be guilty of immorality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yet the economy is good
Consumer confidence is high.
There are great trade deals with China, Canada and Mexico. Iran has been slapped out of its delusion, North Korea is begging to talk, and European leaders who once mocked Trump like Macron, Trudeau, and Merkel have been shamed.
The only people crying are the sufferers of TDS. You keep weeping while the rest of us dance our way to the bank.
Good times are coming. All delusions end.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
In how many threads did you call me poppoff? Hmmm kettle?
My question embarrassed you, so you're angry because it shows how disingenuous your questions to the bible were. You won't answer, but expect Christians to answer you.
And it is not cross-thread contamination shemp, the question is not from any thread. It's just a question I'm asking you.
As I told you. It doesn't matter if you dodge or answer, either way, your ignorance will shine through.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The question really is, have you read the book of Job? Because I don't think you have, and your post above supports that idea.
If you were so sharp, you would be able to answer questions put to you. As is, you are a fraud. A fake who pretends he's ready for debate, when in fact he only wants a soapbox from which to rant.
Till you get some integrity, you will not be treated by people like someone respectable. That is just a fact of life.
Created:
After all that blather, you still dodge the question. Why?
Created:
And then the paranoid genius posts a wall-o-text about, you guessed it, a plot. LolJust to remind you both, the thread is about abortion, it is not about a plot...
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Both of them give us opportunities to expound on our philosophies. That has a value. Because they both essentially post the same silliness every time, few people read them.
But they do read you and Mopac and PGA, even if most of them don't comment.
So let them continue to prattle and rant. Just stay on topic and keep posting those gems that highlight the difference between your calm reasoned positions and their acrid but ultimately empty diatribes.
Like Willows, and Hari, and bulproof, before them, people like this fall on their own. While they're here, use them as an excuse to give the Gentle Readers real information.
But I say, not having a yapping poodle at my heels anymore is pleasant!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Isn't it amazing that in a wall-o-text post by you purporting to answer my post, there is not a single quote of mine?
You post your lame paraphrases, post Dee Dee's lame paraphrases, but never me.
You also dodge all the questions put to you and proclaim yourself champeen. Lol
And after all that nonsense, the questions still sit there accusing you of being a fraud.
Where does the bible say that john's baptism saves? And don't offer verses talking about the baptism of repentance if you will dodge questions about it.
Just address the question homer. Or admit you haven't a clue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Why are you doing a play by play and interpreting my responses? If your argument was strong you would not need to "report" for me.
You said the bible says baptism, like the baptism of John, saves.
I disagreed and asked you for supporting verses.
You posted verses about a different baptism, the baptism of repentance.
I tell you that isn't the same as the baptism of John and ask for an explanation of the baptism of repentance.
You run away.
I press you, and you claim you answered elsewhere.
No one cares about your ministry, egg on anyone's face, or god talking to you.
Just answer the question. Don't dodge with a link or some blather about how wonderful you think you are.
What is the baptism of repentance?
You posted the verses. Could it be that you posted them ignorantly?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"What is baptism of repentance?"
The question is still waiting for you Mr. True Christian.
And when you grow a spine and answer it, I will show you how and why you were wrondg to think baptism saves, and how the verses you offered were not referring to the baptism of John, but the baptism of repentance.
Till then, you get tossed for lolz.
By the way, how did your prostitution ministry go? Hope you didn't return with more than you went with.
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If not, then they were not living contrary to their personal values.
They would have been horrified if their peers from the US Midwest could have seen them. Though they had not been forced, they were NOT living their values. I was there.
Values can change; values can be supplemented and expanded.
Then you are incorrect in stating that personal values are inescapable.
Where did I state that "oughts" were built by consensus?
Your argument strongly implied it.
It [Oughts are not] free from subjective judgement,...
They are. No subjective judgement can be an "ought" for another person. A person's subjective judgement of an "ought" does not free him from being bound to observe it, which is why it is an "ought".
Personal tastes conflict.
Yes it does.
Then no moral framework can satisfy all personal tastes. That is simple logic.
Your focus is on singular tastes conflicting, when Individualism is about respecting the pursuit of self-interests.
Because we are talking about different things.
For example, Communism is when property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
But the explanation of what communism is does not tell us why communism is a superior form of governance, or why anyone should obey its precepts.
My argument is not concerned with Individualism, but in where it gets its authority. Why should anyone observe it precepts? You answer that a person can morally decide to obey or not obey. True, but then it isn't an "ought", for it is immoral to dismiss a moral "ought".
Your argument is akin to "well people are going to argue."
You are missing my argument. I'm asking why is free speech authoritative at all? What about people who think free speech is immoral? What gives free speech more moral value than the opposite?
Your answer so far has just been your personal taste, which you admit other people are free to embrace or reject without moral consequence.
What are you trying to inform?
How to determine true morality from personal tastes.
"Falsehood" based on which metric?
Exactly!!! Now ask yourself, "conflict" based on what metric?
"Good" toward what?
Determining what is truly moral.
But what authority does that morality bear without man and his engagement?
And this is where we disagree. "That" morality, the one you offer, has no authority without man and his engagement.
The morality I'm advancing, sources its authority not from man, so that murder remains immoral even when everyone, including the widow, agrees, that she should be buried along with her dead husband. (India 1700's)
Your mentioning something different.
Yes! Yes I am.
You're talking about the specific means to a specific end. No one is presuming, nor has anyone presumed the specific means to a specific end.
I have. My means is authoritative morality, and my end is true moral behavior.
But the game isn't the authority; and the rules are merely extensions of the ends sought by those who participate.
Yet when a player disagrees with the rules, he is ejected and the rules remain. The game IS the authority.
Any one of those rules can be transmuted and it still would be basketball.
No sir. It could be called basketball at any time, but it would not BE basketball, for what we call it is immaterial. Make the court larger and on grass, remove the hoop and make it a goal, and prohibit the use of hands, and it would be football, no matter what you called it.
I'm trying to reach what is true morality, not just explain the thing we call morality.
This is tautological. By definition, murder is an act to which one did not agree.
No sir. The agreement of a victim to murder matters not one whit to the immorality of murder. And there have been cases where the victim was a willing victim.
So consensus would be irrelevant.
I'm the one who has consistently said consensus is irrelevant. You have not.
Murder is wrong because of a rationalization of an axiom of "right to life." It has no intrinsic authority.
So if we did not have this axiom of "right to life", (which is an " ought") you think murder would be amoral? Your authority here comes from consensus, but you contradict that at other points in your argument. This bares repeating. "Oughts" do not derive their authority from consensus.
While I would agree with you that murder is wrong, and this doesn't depend on consensus, that is germane to the consistency of the rationalization, not "authority."
But this isn't logical. The consistency of the rationalization is simply another way to say consensus. You are still thinking of moral "authority" as in - a power that gains its legitimacy from the agreement and consensus of the people. That is political authority.
The authority of morality does not come from the agreement of people, it remains consistent no matter how thinking changes. It's authority, what makes it an "ought" does not flow from the agreement of the people.
Authority is a reflection of the value moral agents place on their moral concepts.
I flatly disagree with this.
Without the moral agent, moral analysis and authority is insignificant.
This would follow only if your first comment above was true. It isn't.
And this is why we find, in the real world, your ideas of individualism are as impotent as communism. They don't work in reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes it does. But I asked that only to arrive at the springboard to ask my core question.
"Why would that be immoral?"
If you butted in and said to the offender, "Hey Mac, why don't you get your own food?" And the victim meekly said, "I don't mind." Would the guys action in eating the food of another person's be moral?
A materialist must say yes, it is moral, because to him, whether the victim is offended or not is what decides morality.
I say he has still been immoral regardless of whether the frightened victim doesn't mind or not. The authority of morality is not sourced in how they feel.
I'm not asking for an explanation of morality, I'm asking what is it about morality that makes it wrong for us not to obey it?
If one thinks it is wrong not to. Zed, as evidenced by his comment above (murder....not necessarily wrong) thinks morality is man made, and thus not an "ought" on mankind. It is just a concept we created for the smooth working of society, thus it can validate any behavior, even murder, which is not necessarily wrong or right.
Athias seems to believe the same thing, but contradicts the implication of his belief. If morality is wholly made by man, then actions are only categorized as immoral or moral, they are not moral or immoral of themselves. Actions have no moral value until man gives them value.
I'm disagreeing.
Created:
I posted the question homer.Whoops, you can't post the link in question that I allegedly ran away from? LOL!!!
"What is baptism of repentance?"
Dodge it again so that we know your obtuse glasses are on.
Why am I not surprised?
Lol. You never answer questions post spam? That might be it.
Created:
Posted in:
It isn't inescapable. I've seen people live contrary to their personal values when in another culture, like westerners who went topless when living in an African village.It isn't so much that it "should be" as much as it is inescapable from personal values.
Morals are concepts which establish a condition in which man ought to interact with man.
No. "Oughts" are not built by consensus.
And when one discusses "ought to" it is fundamentally a personal judgement-
You may be misunderstanding me. It is a personal judgement whether to follow an "ought", but oughts are free from subjective judgements in their conception.
No moral framework can
incorporate the personal tastes of all individuals...
I just mentioned one that does: Individualism.
You mentioned one that you think does. It doesn't. Personal tastes conflict.
And to sustain this as a consistent moral framework, one needs only respect the capacity and justification of another to do the same.
And to fly, one needs only to flap his arms fast enough to produce the necessary lift. This comment is technically true, but how informative is it?
What is a "guide of how to behave" if not a prescription best suited to reducing conflict as much as possible?
It could also be a prescription best suited to reducing falsehood as much as possible. Morality is more than a materialist concept.
Why is it that in reality everyone doesn't? Do you know?
Culture and customs; mores and folkways; the prominence of collectivism; prejudice; complacency, etc.
Then what good is it? Its exactly like the prescription to flap your arms super fast. It's technically true but unreasonable.
And as with anything, "authority" is where people place their trust and conviction.
No. That would be political or legal authority. I am speaking about a moral authority. Authorities exercise power, moral authority is the justification to exercise power. It does not come from consensus of the people.
But we often do not know what the end [of our actions] will be.
Yes we do. The end is that which we seek.
No we don't. No one is omniscient. We may know what we seek, but often do not know what actions will get us to what we seek.
I'll counter this example with one of my own.
OK.
The authority in this scenario is oneself and the capacity to consider the prospects of one's actions (i.e. one's being a moral agent.)
Untrue. The authority is the game of basketball which has known rules. Your analogy is faulty.
If everyone was free to get the ball into the basket whatever way they saw fit, there would be chaos, not a game.
But you've still gone too far. If the analogy to morality is the game of basketball, what is it that makes the rules (ie - no double dribbling) authoritative?
It is not a perfect analogy because in reality, it is consensus that makes the rules authoritative. But with morality, murder would remain immoral even with a 100% consensus that it was moral.
The moral edict not to murder is authoritative, it does not need agreement, and its authority does not flow out of consensus
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
No Jasper.
Your shtick only works on noobs. I know you're good only for lolz.
You keep running away, and I'll keep tossing you for the lolz. I can live with that.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
No matter how I die deb8, it will not soothe your bitterness or free you from the fear you live under.I hope you die in a Waterfall.
Do something better with your hope than placing it on how I die. Your sophomoric attempts at humor doesn't really hide your bitterness or your fear.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Dee Dee, the question is innocuous. And it's about a verse you posted. Why are you dodging it?
You can post all the silly stuff you do and still answer the question. You can do both. The verses you posted talked about baptism of repentance.
I asked you what was baptism of repentence? You seem to believe it is the same as John's baptism. But you keep running behind silly spam.
If you don't know, just say so. No one here thinks of you an intellectual anyway.
You can answer, which would show your ignorance, or you can dodge it again, which would show your fear of being found ignorant. Ether way, I win.
Go ahead. Blather about running shoes again. Let the Gentle Readers see how vacuous you are.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain to me the difference between uncaused and random.
I can program my computer to flash a light randomly, but the flashes are not uncaused.
Perhaps you can provide an example of something that is uncaused and not random.
God is uncaused and not random.
Perhaps you can provide an example of something that is random and not uncaused.
The flashing lights on my computer. Semantics is fun no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is a category error.
EMPIRICAL is necessarily Quantifiable (scientifically verifiable).
BAD is necessarily Qualitative (experiential, AXIOLOGICAL).
Sorry Brute. Here was the question,
Can your moral code give us a moral action that is empirically "bad"?
As you can see, the word "empirically" refers to the "action", which someone then determines subjectively is bad.
Google mining will never substitute for a real education. But well stated.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@Stephen
If you'd ever answer a question put to you, your rants wouldn't be impotent.
@ludo
Since you're the one saying that you agree that the universe has a cause, it's you I'm interested in talking to, not just anyone.
But you seemed to be implying that you'd only be an observer in the new thread. If that is so, I decline. I want atheists not afraid to answer questions like the genius is.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Cali grows nuts in the central valley no?If you have to know, my home base for my preaching the truth about the Bible is in the Central Valley of California.
my Nevada State Brothel Ministries...
This reminds me. Why are all the "god speaks to me" losers on the net also sex perverts too?
Where do they grow these geniuses?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I could make 5 separate threads on the questions of mine you've dodged.
Please, Please, then do it. I would be very interested.
You would just dodge every question again. No thanks.
And regardless of who the post was to,...
If the post was not addressed to you, then the "you" in the post could not have been talking about you, and therefore I did not lie.
this didn't stop you hounding me concerning a post I directed towards Mopac, now did it,
No. I didn't stupidly think your post to mopac was to me, I just asked you a question about your own comment, which you're still dodging.
"Not a single verse you offered mentioned baptism,"
The "you" there refers to Dee Dee genius. You are free to answer a post not addressed to you, but remember it was not addressed to you. Think goober.
I count four time the mention of the word baptism. I also can see the words " FOR forgivness of sins". Which something else you insist on denying.
So just the word baptism in a verse makes it about baptism? Your verses said the baptism of repentance. I've asked you what baptism of repentance is four times now, and you keep running away. Why?
QUESTIONS GONE UNANSWERED BY THE RESIDENT DEVOUT.
No one cares about your lame questions you fraud. If you run away from questions, no one will answer yours.
You get your jollies by posting them, which is why you just dodge questions and post them again. You must think they are bombshells. lol
You keep repeating your ignorant questions, and I will keep showing the Gentle Readers how empty you are.
If you want your questions answered, answer the questions of others. But since you dodge the questions of others, you must not want your questions answered.
I'll play with you. I'll toss you like the lolz magnet you are.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Lol. The tolerance and love of the progressive liberal is never far from the surface.I hope you die in a grease fire.
You hope I didn't have religious parents, but you do hope I die in a grease fire.
Your parents did a number on you didn't they? You're almost combustible walking around with that much bitterness in you.
Stay away from grease fires.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I gave you one and you ran away.I asked you to give me at least 5 questions that you made that I have allegedly run away from...
You blathered for another two paragraphs and still managed to dodge answering either of the two questions I reposted.
Basically, you are vacuous. That means empty Dee Dee. Which is why I simply toss you for lolz.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I hope what you meant to say, was that you suspect that I wouldn't kill or rape.
Yes I did. Sorry. It was a typo.
Furthermore I would suggest that my propensity for not killing and raping is probably the same as yours is.
I was not referring to our propensity, but our reasons for NOT killing and raping.
And in that particular respect, I think that all we are actually doing is using different words and interpretations of acquired data to say the same thing.
We aren't. But it's really difficult to get people to see past their core beliefs.
Developed social reasoning and consequent social conditioning, generally dictate that most rational social participants are able to confirm with the developed social rationale.
My focus is the authority of that social rationale, not how or why or whether rational social participants can or will conform.
Though, If I understand you correctly, what you seem to be purporting is the idea that morality is something that is wholly separate and extra-humanly existent, therefore something that perhaps we do or do not download irrespective of social conditioning or inherency.
Yes. It needs tweaking to be 100% correct to my argument, but we can do that later. For now, it's close enough.
Maybe, but nonetheless a notion that doesn't fit with my current way of thinking/organising data.
My argument is unconcerned with how you organize data. And as I said earlier, you do not believe morality exists so we really have nothing to discuss.
You live as though morality does exist, so to challenge your worldview would be unproductive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Thanks DD
The question didn't change. It was...
Can your moral code give us a moral action that is empirically "bad"?
The point was to highlight the curious agreement between peoples personal tastes and their moral codes.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Any ideas big fella on what age is best to start the indoctrination of kids process?
I don't think kids should be indoctrinated. But if one does indoctrinate a kid, making them fear groups is a stupid thing to do.
Hold the phone.
Yeah. I'm holding mine.
The post says.
That's not a sentence festus.
When Christian Children don't obey their parents.
Hmm?
Christian Children.
I think the OP means as opposed to Christian adults.
Are we to assume that a Christian Mommy and a Christian Daddy have babie Christians ?
Who knows? Is it more reasonable to assume that a Christian Mommy and a Christian Daddy have geriatric Christians? I tend not to assume.
Or or , Muslim dads and Muslim moms have little babie Muslims.
You seem to be adept at assuming. Why are you asking me about your assumptions of someone else's post? And why would I be interested?
The sheer numbers of this occurrence / fact in itself should be something to be marveled at.
Your assumptions has now morphed into fact huh?
How could a babie Muslim ever know that they are really a christian ?
Your whole train of thought here is so silly and off tangent, I don't know what yo say. I doubt if you know what you're saying either. But at least you seem to have smug satisfaction oozing from your pores.
I am going to far now hey Thang?
Do you even know where you are? I just got rid of a malignant stalker, please don't replace him. I have no clue why you pick me for your incoherent babblings.
Baby Muslims and baby Christians.
And baby Hindus. I hear they are born as babies too.
Hey remember that poor kid at school with the deeply religious parents.
I didn't go to school with you, but I can guess you were that kid.
I wouldn't wish that shlt on No one.
Judging on your mental condition now, I can sympathize with you.
Good game.Good game.
You are the only one playing, so we'll take your word on it. Just don't hurt yourself OK?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You're welcome genius.
Lol!
No really, where do these geniuses come from?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yet you keep obsessing on me in your every post. And when I ask you why, you can't answer.LOL!!!! You are giving yourself too much credit, where there is none to begin with!
Give me 5 questions that I have recently and allegedly run away from, Begin:
Why? So you can run away again? I began this exchange asking why you mention me in all your posts, even your posts to others, even posts in threads I have not posted to.
You are dodging that question while asking me to list five questions.
You dodged my question, "What is baptism of repentance" too.
Don't bother to answer. You're only good for lolz. No one expects you to be a thinker.
Stay on those antibiotics.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your dichotomy is false.
(2) your thoughts (and actions) are random (uncaused by any previous experiences).
Just because thoughts may be uncaused by any previous experiences, does not necessarily make them random.
Created:
Lol.
The sense of humor of sadists is hella funny.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Anyway. Are we to "love" our brothers and sisters or are we to "hate" our brothers and sisters?
Anyway, Is Mopac a sheep or is he a human being?
I really do wish these scribes would make up their minds.
They will as soon as you do.
Are we to "love" our brothers and sisters or are we to "hate" our brothers and sisters?
Can barnyard animals post to the board or can they not? Its your comment, why is it so difficult for you to make up your mind?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Hey, EtrnlVw, Disgusting has been perma-banned. No more stalking and harassment anymore. Nice huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Is the game going to be on discord? Supa kinda implied he'd ban hammer me if I was ever on discord.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I'm sorry. I really am. I think Bernie is sincere. But we need someone who will not wreck the economy.
Created:
Posted in:
Can your moral code give us an moral action that is empirically "bad"?
What do you mean by empirically bad?
What any sane human being would determine was personally "bad", as in bad for him.
In other words something that everyone agrees with their subjective standards is bad?
Yes. Can you?
Okay. By that definition the answer to question one is 'yes'.
Ok. So, do you have a personal objection in giving us an example a moral action that is empirically "bad" but prescribed by your moral code?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And I am asking, first, should it be?
Yes.
Why? I agree that it is, but why should it be?
I'm talking about a moral framework that incorporates the personal tastes of all individuals...
No moral framework can
incorporate the personal tastes of all individuals...
...and provides a prescription best suited for each individual to manifest said tastes. And by "best-suited," I mean with as little conflict and dispute as possible.
But you cannot know which prescription with be "best-suited," to producing as little conflict and dispute as possible until after
conflicts and disputes arise! Morality should not be guesses. Morality should be a guide of how to behave.
Hence, everyone ought to abide by individualist morality.
Why is it that in reality everyone doesn't? Do you know?
I don't see how materialism ties in with the fundamentally normative nature of morality; can you explain further?
I'm talking about about moral authority in the context of ethics. A logical moral framework does not make it authoritative.
And the "ought" is inherent to the ends.
But we often do not know what the end will be. In those cases our morality will be guesses which could end up being grossly immoral in the end.
Here is an example. Say at a football game I, a simple fan, sneak in a whistle and blow it just before the ref does, making the players think the ref has blown his whistle.
Though I did exactly what the ref was about to do, and did it at the time the ref would have done it, I did not have the authority to whistle the game into a timeout.
What is the difference between my blowing a whistle and the ref blowing his whistle? Authority. A player would be correct to ignore my whistle and continue playing.
Now, if we make moral laws those whistles, and we the players, what makes one moral law authoritative and another not?
You keep telling me how a whistle blower should behave fairly and consistently in order to produce as little conflict and dispute as possible in the game, and I'm asking what is it that makes the whistleblower authoritative in the first place?
The person who blows his whistle in such a way that the game has as little conflict as possible is not then the "best" whistle blower. How good a whistle blower he is matters not to whether he has authority.
Created: