Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    I have too and we both know that there is far from conclusive or even compelling evidence that you are ‘born that way’. As per your usual way though, you pretend your position is default, overstate the evidence for your case, and pretend as though your opponents are too dumb to understand you. Thus why so many find you inferring.
    Science is never "conclusive," Pixie. It's not a religion. Its a process for weighing evidence and coming to conclusions, until more evidence is available. Right now, the bulk of the evidence is that homosexuality has both a nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) component. That aligns with my experiences, so I accept it as true until I have reason to think otherwise. You, clearly, have come to a different conclusion.

    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    You mean showing up to an event as counter protesters, to annoy a group looking for exposure and violence and it happens? Who would of thought that would happen? Do you think they would have got exposure if your side wasn’t so obsessed with, “IMG NAZI’S!!! WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!”
    My side? I would think that anyone, seeing a gathering of neo-nazis and self-proclaimed white supremacists, would indeed take a stand against it. I do not advocate for violence, and find the tactics of ANTIFA unacceptable. But to let it pass unremarked...? No...I don't think so.

    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    Anything would have happened? No, but they sure would have got millions of eyeballs watching them and exposing their message to millions that never would have heard of them without the media and people like yourself helping them along. You deal with attention seekers by depriving them of attention. Something you haven’t figured out yet. The KKK’s power came from having political power at state and local levels and using this power to harass and intimidate their enemies. The Nazi’s were the say way too. Modern ones have no real power to do this and thus ignoring them in their death throws is a pretty effective way to deal with them.
    Since I have said pretty much the same thing in other contexts, we appear to be in agreement on this point. And now we are WAY down a tangent, so I'll leave it at that.

    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    I base things on observation. You know who is out there killing blacks? It’s mostly other black men. Most likely to a black man assault? Again another black man. You’re most likely to be a criminal victim by a member of your own race, despite whatever others want to claim.
    Violence is indeed higher in the black community (as a percentage) than the white. Since I have no reason to believe that black people are "inherently more violent," when one goes looking for the actual cause, one finds the actual causal link is not skin color, it's poverty and education. Because the black community, on average, is poorer and has less access to good education, the result is pretty much inevitable. Solve the poverty/education problem, and you not only address the violence problem, you also help all people (regardless of race) that struggle with poverty/education and avoid helping those who (regardless of race) don't need that help.

    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    You have a difficult time understanding your opponents, don’t you? Here is what I was responding to:

    “Actually, my comment was about your blanket dismissal. I said nothing about what you did or did not experience.”

    My dismissal had to do with few accusations of racism, homophobia, or sexism actually being accurate.
    And that relates to your comments about my experiences or background (which you cannot actually know) exactly how...?

    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    And apparently get annoyed over ‘racist’ that clearly are seeking attention.
    I seldom experience "annoyance" on sites such as these. I think you folks are assuming a level of emotional involvement I'm simply not feeling. I can think of a handful of times when I've gotten "emotional" here since returning. Almost all have been when I was tired or stressed about something in my personal life and I found myself reacting to something I saw as "petty" here. Other than moments of tiredness/weakness, these are just discussions to me: exchanges and explorations between strangers. I say what I think and why, and enjoy taking apart ideas and seeing what makes them tick. That's about it.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      No Carp, this is the bottom line. If you are correct food choices are just as important or not depending on the subjective view of the person.
      Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. What you're doing, Seer, is akin to someone arguing that a child's tricycle is a vehicle, and a car is a vehicle, so there is no reason for differentiating between the two for "driving across the country." Technically, you're right. Someone COULD prefer a tricycle for that journey. It's not what actually happens, or how relative/subjective moralists actually moralize. There is a good reason for this, since there is a dependent relationship between "valuing life" and "valuing pizza," one you are forced to ignore to maintain your position.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      So when you chide me for using that example, you are not doing it on logical grounds.
      I am, and have explained why several times now. And my "chiding" is simply to point out that your argument is simply one from "ridicule" or "condescension." It's not actually an argument. Yes, in a subjective moral framework, it is possible for someone to subjectively value "pizza toppings" above "life." After all, the framework is subjective. For all of the reasons I have cited, it essentially never happens. But you have to keep coming to it because you and I both know "pizza toppings" is a trivial preference, so if you continuously make the association, you can ridicule/diminish the position. We both know that because you never point out that some people can value life over liberty while others value liberty over life. That too is subjective, and a disagreement on priority. But it doesn't have the emotional appeal of the "trivial" positions you intentionally continually return to. It is your go-to Technique #2.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      You don't like having your "cherished values" compared to food choices - it trivialized your values.
      Like? Seer, you can compare anything you wish. I have said several times that relative/subjective morality is exactly that, relative/subjective. People establish moral codes on a wide variety of bases. It is possible (not probable) someone will value as you describe. I have never disputed that. Your need to continually pick out the most trivial of values speaks to your lack of argument, not what I have described.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      But that too is your opinion, no more right or worthy or true than the opinion that food is more important. Your values are important only because you hold them and find them important (circular).
      What we value is based on a multitude of factors: reason, upbringing, environmental context, experience, etc. When we find value in X, we value X. That "value" is rooted in how X enhances our lives. Living enhances my life by definition - since I cannot experience anything else without living. Happiness enhances my life...almost by definition. Health, liberty all enhance my living. So I value all of those things. All us "rank" the things we value from a "profound" to a "trivial" level. In general, we tend to see similar things at the "profound" level: life, liberty, health, happiness, etc. We also find common things at the trivial level: pizza toppings, beer brand, color preferences, etc. We tend to use the word "moral" in association with the things we "profoundly" value. That's just how morality works.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      When pushed on this you appealed to a majority opinion (which you denied even though I quoted you directly). So in your defence you reverted to a fallacy. And yes, I do use words like "merely" and "just" because in the big picture your moral opinion and values are as trivial as the existence of our species, as trivial are your existence. Dust in the wind brother, all we are is dust in the wind. And all your pontificating won't change that fact.
      We are indeed "dust in the wind." I don't think I ever said otherwise. As for the "appeal to the majority," I have responded to this multiple times. There is a difference between, "we see this dynamic in the majority of the human population" and "my position is true because the majority of people agree with me." I have said the former, which is an observation about patterns. I have never said, nor do I believe, the latter, which is an attempt to appeal to the majority (as you have noted). I HAVE said, "I trust the majority of people to see through your Technique #2 and identify it for what it is: an attempt to trivialize relative/subjective morality by taking the most extreme inversion and constantly harping on it, and using terms like "merely" and "just" when the statement would stand quite well without the terms. It's not an actual argument - it's just a debate tactic. It's effective for conveying condescension and scoring points with the folks in your audience predisposed to agree with you. It has no actual content related to arriving at "what is true."
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-18-2018, 09:27 AM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        No Carp, this is the bottom line. If you are correct food choices are just as important or not depending on the subjective view of the person. So when you chide me for using that example, you are not doing it on logical grounds. You don't like having your "cherished values" compared to food choices - it trivialized your values. But that too is your opinion, no more right or worthy or true than the opinion that food is more important. Your values are important only because you hold them and find them important (circular). When pushed on this you appealed to a majority opinion (which you denied even though I quoted you directly). So in your defence you reverted to a fallacy. And yes, I do use words like "merely" and "just" because in the big picture your moral opinion and values are as trivial as the existence of our species, as trivial are your existence. Dust in the wind brother, all we are is dust in the wind. And all your pontificating won't change that fact.
        Food choices are just as important in the sense of the choices made being in your best interest or not. But what you choose to eat doesn't effect anyone else and morality has to do with social relationships, not your own personal likes. Bad analogy!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Food choices are just as important in the sense of the choices made being in your best interest or not. But what you choose to eat doesn't effect anyone else and morality has to do with social relationships, not your own personal likes. Bad analogy!

          That really wasn't the point Jim.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. What you're doing, Seer, is akin to someone arguing that a child's tricycle is a vehicle, and a car is a vehicle, so there is no reason for differentiating between the two for "driving across the country." Technically, you're right. Someone COULD prefer a tricycle for that journey. It's not what actually happens, or how relative/subjective moralists actually moralize. There is a good reason for this, since there is a dependent relationship between "valuing life" and "valuing pizza," one you are forced to ignore to maintain your position.

            I am, and have explained why several times now. And my "chiding" is simply to point out that your argument is simply one from "ridicule" or "condescension." It's not actually an argument. Yes, in a subjective moral framework, it is possible for someone to subjectively value "pizza toppings" above "life." After all, the framework is subjective. For all of the reasons I have cited, it essentially never happens. But you have to keep coming to it because you and I both know "pizza toppings" is a trivial preference, so if you continuously make the association, you can ridicule/diminish the position. We both know that because you never point out that some people can value life over liberty while others value liberty over life. That too is subjective, and a disagreement on priority. But it doesn't have the emotional appeal of the "trivial" positions you intentionally continually return to. It is your go-to Technique #2.

            Like? Seer, you can compare anything you wish. I have said several times that relative/subjective morality is exactly that, relative/subjective. People establish moral codes on a wide variety of bases. It is possible (not probable) someone will value as you describe. I have never disputed that. Your need to continually pick out the most trivial of values speaks to your lack of argument, not what I have described.

            What we value is based on a multitude of factors: reason, upbringing, environmental context, experience, etc. When we find value in X, we value X. That "value" is rooted in how X enhances our lives. Living enhances my life by definition - since I cannot experience anything else without living. Happiness enhances my life...almost by definition. Health, liberty all enhance my living. So I value all of those things. All us "rank" the things we value from a "profound" to a "trivial" level. In general, we tend to see similar things at the "profound" level: life, liberty, health, happiness, etc. We also find common things at the trivial level: pizza toppings, beer brand, color preferences, etc. We tend to use the word "moral" in association with the things we "profoundly" value. That's just how morality works.

            We are indeed "dust in the wind." I don't think I ever said otherwise. As for the "appeal to the majority," I have responded to this multiple times. There is a difference between, "we see this dynamic in the majority of the human population" and "my position is true because the majority of people agree with me." I have said the former, which is an observation about patterns. I have never said, nor do I believe, the latter, which is an attempt to appeal to the majority (as you have noted). I HAVE said, "I trust the majority of people to see through your Technique #2 and identify it for what it is: an attempt to trivialize relative/subjective morality by taking the most extreme inversion and constantly harping on it, and using terms like "merely" and "just" when the statement would stand quite well without the terms. It's not an actual argument - it's just a debate tactic. It's effective for conveying condescension and scoring points with the folks in your audience predisposed to agree with you. It has no actual content related to arriving at "what is true."
            Carp do you really need to turn every response into a dissertation? Especially since it is akin to an ant potificating on ethics and values right before someone steps on him! And about as trivial. And I have no idea what you mean by "what it true" - how can one have truth without an objective standard to appeal to?
            Last edited by seer; 04-18-2018, 11:30 AM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              If you are tired of exchanging views, Sparko, just disengage or put me on block. No one is required to read or respond to what I write.

              As for universal, I see literally no difference between the two usages you are suggesting:

              Sparko: believes everyone everywhere should be adhering to his moral code - which is the one he believes is "given by god"
              Seer: believes everyone everywhere should be adhering to his moral code - which is the one he believes is "given by god"
              Michel: believes everyone everywhere should be adhering to his moral code - which is the one he has derived from what he values
              The difference being is you also claim that there are no universal morals and everything is relative.

              (also it would be better said that seer and I believe there is an objective moral code that exists even though everyone does NOT adhere to it, or even if nobody adhered to it)
              Last edited by Sparko; 04-18-2018, 11:32 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Carp do you really need to turn every response into a dissertation?
                Apparently.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Especially since it is akin to an ant potificating on ethics and values right before someone steps on him! And about as trivial.
                Technique #2

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                And I have no idea what you mean by "what it true" - how can one have truth without an objective standard to appeal to?
                You seem to think only objective truths are "true," Seer. "I love pizza" is a true statement, and it is entirely subjective. It is true for me, but untrue for my niece, who hates that food. There is objective reality, and there is subjective reality. Both are real. One is real for everyone (hence objective), the other is real on an individual basis (hence subjective). You want to shoehorn morality into the former, but with absolutely no argument for doing so. You want to deny that morality is the latter, but with absolutely no argument for doing so.

                I've asked you multiple times if you can make an argument for morality needing to be objective and not being subjective that isn't a resort to complaining that subjective morality isn't objective (Technique #1), attempting to cast all subjective morality as trivial through your use of language (Technique #2), or appealing to outrage (Technique #3, which also includes Technique #1). So far...nothing.

                You simply don't have an argument. You have "debate tactics." Effective for rousing a crowd; useless for making a coherent argument.
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-18-2018, 12:26 PM.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  The difference being is you also claim that there are no universal morals and everything is relative.

                  (also it would be better said that seer and I believe there is an objective moral code that exists even though everyone does NOT adhere to it, or even if nobody adhered to it)
                  There is no conflict between "universal" and "relative" that I can see, but I will acknowledge that I was sloppy with my language earlier: I tended to contrast subjective/relative with objective/absolute/universal/eternal. When the discussion about "universal" became the focus, I realized I was incorrect. The correct contrast should be subjective/relative/temporal with objective/absolute/eternal, with both being universal.

                  And I realize you and Seer think that morality is objective/absolute/eternal, but neither of you can make an argument for why this must be so. On the other hand, I have traced how morality is subjective/relative for all people, and the response is either crickets, or a return to Techniques 1-3.

                  As a result, I see no reason to change my existing POV: morality is a subjective/relative/temporal activity of a sentient mind. Attempt to claim objective/absolute/eternal moral frameworks are nothing more than attempts to take one person's (or one group's) subjective/relative/temporal framework, attribute it to a god, and claim it is "authoritative" as a result.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-18-2018, 12:25 PM.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Apparently.



                    Technique #2



                    You seem to think only objective truths are "true," Seer. "I love pizza" is a true statement, and it is entirely subjective. It is true for me, but untrue for my niece, who hates that food. There is objective reality, and there is subjective reality. Both are real. One is real for everyone (hence objective), the other is real on an individual basis (hence subjective). You want to shoehorn morality into the former, but with absolutely no argument for doing so. You want to deny that morality is the latter, but with absolutely no argument for doing so.
                    No, it is still an objective truth statement. "I (Michel) love Pizza" is objectively true. It is true to me that you love Pizza. It is true to everyone and the universe that Michel loves Pizza. Your identity is implied when you say "I" and makes it an objectively true statement.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

                      Technique #2
                      It's a good Technique and logically true. Unless you believe you have more inherent wroth than an ant.

                      You seem to think only objective truths are "true," Seer. "I love pizza" is a true statement, and it is entirely subjective. It is true for me, but untrue for my niece, who hates that food. There is objective reality, and there is subjective reality. Both are real. One is real for everyone (hence objective), the other is real on an individual basis (hence subjective). You want to shoehorn morality into the former, but with absolutely no argument for doing so. You want to deny that morality is the latter, but with absolutely no argument for doing so.
                      No Carp, I'm just pointing out what logically follows from your position. I can not prove nor you disprove objective morality. So we look at logical conclusions of worldviews.

                      I've asked you multiple times if you can make an argument for morality needing to be objective and not being subjective that isn't a resort to complaining that subjective morality isn't objective (Technique #1), attempting to cast all subjective morality as trivial through your use of language (Technique #2), or appealing to outrage (Technique #3, which also includes Technique #1). So far...nothing.

                      You simply don't have an argument. You have "debate tactics." Effective for rousing a crowd; useless for making a coherent argument.
                      But subjective morality is logically trivial, as trivial as were as a species are.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        No, it is still an objective truth statement. "I (Michel) love Pizza" is objectively true. It is true to me that you love Pizza. It is true to everyone and the universe that Michel loves Pizza. Your identity is implied when you say "I" and makes it an objectively true statement.
                        Everyone's "subjective truth" is objectively true to someone else.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          It's a good Technique and logically true. Unless you believe you have more inherent wroth than an ant.
                          It's a technique of ridicule that says nothing about "truth." You are essentially arguing that subjective morality cannot be real because someone might value "pizza toppings" over "life." Yes - someone might. That says nothing about the truth of the proposition. It simply says you want to paint the position as "ridiculous" because that might happen. That it might happen says nothing about the truth of the proposition, "morality is subjective." It simply says "I find the possible results silly." That's especially true since that is not what actually does happen. So your objection is duly noted, and your sense of "ridiculous" has been communicated. You just haven't made a rational argument for why subjective/relative morality is not how morality works.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          No Carp, I'm just pointing out what logically follows from your position. I can not prove nor you disprove objective morality. So we look at logical conclusions of worldviews.
                          And the logical conclusion is that human moralizing is a subjective/relative activity.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          But subjective morality is logically trivial, as trivial as were as a species are.
                          You have declared it "logically trivial," but you have not made that case. At the end of the day, when we set aside the argument from ridicule and the argument from outrage, what we have left is the argument from tautology: subjective morality is trivial because it's not objective.

                          As I have noted - it's not an argument - it's a tautology.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Everyone's "subjective truth" is objectively true to someone else.
                            It is objectively true for everyone. That is what "objectively true" means.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              It is objectively true for everyone. That is what "objectively true" means.
                              Yes- I agree with that - my subjective truth is objectively true to everyone else, about me.

                              I'm not sure that is changing any of the discussion.

                              If there is a god, then god's morality is subjective to god, and objective to me in the same way that your morality is objective to me and everyone else.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Yes- I agree with that - my subjective truth is objectively true to everyone else, about me.

                                I'm not sure that is changing any of the discussion.
                                It kinda hamstrings your whole point in using that as an example.

                                If there is a god, then god's morality is subjective to god, and objective to me in the same way that your morality is objective to me and everyone else.
                                That doesn't even make sense.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                307 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X