Take Back Our Country

[carpedm9587]

Oh stop with your superior nonsense, I understand relativity, it is just that it has no bearing on moral questions. In one case there can be no objective verification/falsification, in the other case there can be.

No - you clearly don't Seer. It has nothing to do with superiority. You simply don't get it. Or you're trolling. I'm not sure which.

Oh please Carp, I don't see you changing your positions on moral principles that you hold dear.

I actually have, several times in my life. But I am 60 years old this year, and I've heard most/many of the arguments, so the changes are rarer as I get older. It seems odd that you would make this judgement on the basis of a few months of posting on a web-based forum...

And there are no "good arguments" that don't regress to personal bias and preference.

See my previous responses.

Like is said, your opinions are as intractable as the fundamental Christian's.

See my previous response.

And BTW most Moral Realists are atheists.

Most? That seems odd since (in my experience) most theists are moral realists and there are far more theists than atheists. That being said, I know this is true. True moral relativism is tough to get your arms around, and many people resort to their historical roots. We saw the same thing happen when Einstein proposed relativity in physics. In time, people realized the value. But it does take time.

Then what makes one moral position less valid than another?

You are attempting to make a comparison in a relative framework with no basis for comparison. This question has no answer because the question itself is meaningless. Might as well ask "what color is three?" You really DO need to learn about relativity, Seer.

Again that is false, I am not a moral relativist. If I believe that there are universal moral truths (whether I understand them rightly or not) then I am not a relativist - period...

What you believe is irrelevant. What you DO and how you ACT is relevant. You claim moral realism, but then do everything a moral relativist does. The only difference between you and a moral relativist is that you adopt the moral framework of the bible (ironically enough, as you subjectively interpret it) and claim it is "absolute."

A physicist can also adopt the surface of the planet as their physical framework, and claim it is an "absolute" (which is basically what you were doing in your earlier arguments, but you weren't seeing it); that does not make the surface of the earth an absolute framework. It's just a commonly used one.

[seer]

No - you clearly don't Seer. It has nothing to do with superiority. You simply don't get it. Or you're trolling. I'm not sure which.

Of course I do, you are conflicting moral ideals (non physical) with physical realities. Apples and oranges.

I actually have, several times in my life. But I am 60 years old this year, and I've heard most/many of the arguments, so the changes are rarer as I get older. It seems odd that you would make this judgement on the basis of a few months of posting on a web-based forum...

Yes you are turning into a stodgy old curmudgeon like me! I have heard all your arguments (for the most part), and personally held them until my late 30s. Now at 65, I find them wanting more and more.

Most? That seems odd since (in my experience) most theists are moral realists and there are far more theists than atheists. That being said, I know this is true. True moral relativism is tough to get your arms around, and many people resort to their historical roots. We saw the same thing happen when Einstein proposed relativity in physics. In time, people realized the value. But it does take time.

No, moral realism is generally a secular way to get to universal moral truths. The theist already has a god to get there. And what takes time - the belief that the Holocaust was just relatively wrong? Do you really think the majority of people will jump on that bandwagon?

You are attempting to make a comparison in a relative framework with no basis for comparison. This question has no answer because the question itself is meaningless. Might as well ask "what color is three?" You really DO need to learn about relativity, Seer.

Carp you brought up the equally valid thing: You folks have long been locked into the fallacy that moral relativism means every moral point of view has to be respected and agreed with as "equally valid."

OK, so what makes a moral point of view unequal and not worthy of respect?

[carpedm9587]

Of course I do, you are conflicting moral ideals (non physical) with physical realities. Apples and oranges.

Seer, your complete lack of ability to understand the analogy (not agree...understand), your inability to relate it back correctly, and your constant (wrong) insistence that there is an objective basis for resolving disputes about speed indicate you do not, actually, understand relativity. In relativity, there is no way to resolve disputes about speed until a common framework is agreed upon. Likewise, in morality, there is no way to resolve disputes about morality until a common framework is agreed upon.

You keep wanting to go back to that "safe space" of absolutes in physics - and there simply is none. No amount of explanation has been able to get you to see that point. I conclude, at this point, that you are either incapable of understanding it, or I am incapable of teaching it (which I have successfully done many times, so that does not seem likely), or you are simply baiting/trolling.

If you think you understand relativity, Seer, then tackle this very simple problem in relativity and answer it:

Two people are in a featureless void. They see a third object. Person A says, "that object is moving at 35 MPH." Person B says, "that object is moving at 25 MPH." Which one is right? Describe how one would objectively determine which claim is correct.

(my guess is that you will find a reason to not answer that simple problem)

Yes you are turning into a stodgy old curmudgeon like me! I have heard all your arguments (for the most part), and personally held them until my late 30s. Now at 65, I find them wanting more and more.

I may well be turning into an old curmudgeon!

As for the arguments, you took the words right out of my mouth...

No, moral realism is generally a secular way to get to universal moral truths. The theist already has a god to get there. And what takes time - the belief that the Holocaust was just relatively wrong? Do you really think the majority of people will jump on that bandwagon?

Appealing to masses? First, the holocaust was wrong. It was wrong in my moral framework. It is wrong in the moral frameworks of most people. I don't think I need to convince too many people of that. The reasons why it is wrong is rooted in values most of us have. Moral relativism doesn't change that.

And you're back to Technique #3

Carp you brought up the equally valid thing: You folks have long been locked into the fallacy that moral relativism means every moral point of view has to be respected and agreed with as "equally valid."

OK, so what makes a moral point of view unequal and not worthy of respect?

Yes - you have the incorrect notion that moral relativism requires every point of view to be equally valid. It doesn't. And your question still has no answer because it still has no meaning. You are attempting to make an assessment from an absolute position that does not exist (just as you were trying to objectively assess the speed of the car from an absolute position that does not exist.

[seer]

If you think you understand relativity, Seer, then tackle this very simple problem in relativity and answer it:

Two people are in a featureless void. They see a third object. Person A says, "that object is moving at 35 MPH." Person B says, "that object is moving at 25 MPH." Which one is right? Describe how one would objectively determine which claim is correct.

But we don't live in a featureless void, so there are always objective physical realities to answer physical questions. As opposed to your moral world where there actually is a featureless void - at all times.

I may well be turning into an old curmudgeon!

See we can agree!

As for the arguments, you took the words right out of my mouth...

I think we are both getting to old to change.

Appealing to masses? First, the holocaust was wrong. It was wrong in my moral framework. It is wrong in the moral frameworks of most people. I don't think I need to convince too many people of that. The reasons why it is wrong is rooted in values most of us have. Moral relativism doesn't change that.

But logically you can only conclude that it is relatively wrong, the relative part is what I don't think people will ever accept.

Yes - you have the incorrect notion that moral relativism requires every point of view to be equally valid. It doesn't. And your question still has no answer because it still has no meaning. You are attempting to make an assessment from an absolute position that does not exist (just as you were trying to objectively assess the speed of the car from an absolute position that does not exist.

No Carp, don't try and turn it around. Why aren't they equally valid or to be respected? You made that claim.

[carpedm9587]

But we don't live in a featureless void, so there are always objective physical realities to answer physical questions. As opposed to your moral world where there actually is a featureless void - at all times.

First - I was pretty sure you would not answer the question.

Second - we do indeed live in a featureless void. That's the entire point of relativity. My example only had three things in it. The universe we live in has bazillions. But the principle is exactly the same. Everything is relative to everything else and, without a selected framework, nothing can be said about absolute position or absolute speed.

At this point, Seer, you're dodging this basic physics point pretty badly. This is Physics 101 post Einstein.

See we can agree!

I'll alert the media.

I think we are both getting to old to change.

Speak for yourself. I have long since made it a practice to look for things in my beliefs that might be wrong, and tear at them. It has become a lifestyle. The small things change fairly frequently. The big things less often. The moment I become "too old to change" is when it's time for me to die.

But logically you can only conclude that it is relatively wrong, the relative part is what I don't think people will ever accept.

And people will never accept the LGBTQ community. And we will never tackle racism. And we will never get rid of fossil fuels. And we will never <insert challenge X here>. I think you are now the one speaking without access to the future.

No Carp, don't try and turn it around. Why aren't they equally valid or to be respected? You made that claim.

No - I said that the right is stuck on this notion that, in moral relativity, all views are equally valid. I did not say they were unequally valid. I have said, repeatedly, that the entire concept of equal or unequal validity is meaningless.

But to understand that, you would need to understand relativity. Despite your claims to the contrary, your posts strongly suggest that you actually don't. That's not a sin, Seer. Not knowing is just not knowing. We all have areas of ignorance. I am ignorant about particle physics. I am ignorant about the operation of my car. I am ignorant about how to trim an apple tree. Not understanding relativity is not a reason to be ashamed. But stubbornly clinging to an argument in the face of ignorance...that is indeed a problem.

[seer]

First - I was pretty sure you would not answer the question.

Second - we do indeed live in a featureless void. That's the entire point of relativity. My example only had three things in it. The universe we live in has bazillions. But the principle is exactly the same. Everything is relative to everything else and, without a selected framework, nothing can be said about absolute position or absolute speed.

At this point, Seer, you're dodging this basic physics point pretty badly. This is Physics 101 post Einstein.

Nonsense Carp, I did answer your question, there is no featureless void, but if there was as soon as something physical shows up, we can then have objective physical measurements - not until then, whether relative or not. You can never have such objective physical measurement with your moral world - it remain featureless void. In other words, you are comparing the physical with the non-physical.

I'll alert the media.

I bet you feel good finally catching up to me! High honor indeed!

Speak for yourself. I have long since made it a practice to look for things in my beliefs that might be wrong, and tear at them. It has become a lifestyle. The small things change fairly frequently. The big things less often. The moment I become "too old to change" is when it's time for me to die.

Ok, don't die too soon, I'm not done schooling ya yet!

And people will never accept the LGBTQ community. And we will never tackle racism. And we will never get rid of fossil fuels. And we will never <insert challenge X here>. I think you are now the one speaking without access to the future.

Right so gay bashing is only relatively wrong. Got it...

No - I said that the right is stuck on this notion that, in moral relativity, all views are equally valid. I did not say they were unequally valid. I have said, repeatedly, that the entire concept of equal or unequal validity is meaningless.

What? So the view whether the Holocaust was good or bad has no answer?

But to understand that, you would need to understand relativity. Despite your claims to the contrary, your posts strongly suggest that you actually don't. That's not a sin, Seer. Not knowing is just not knowing. We all have areas of ignorance. I am ignorant about particle physics. I am ignorant about the operation of my car. I am ignorant about how to trim an apple tree. Not understanding relativity is not a reason to be ashamed. But stubbornly clinging to an argument in the face of ignorance...that is indeed a problem.

Carp, get off your high horse, I understand what the theory of special relativity states. What I have been trying to understand is how that relates to whether morality is relative or not? What is the logical connection or follow on? There is relativity with physical objects therefore - what?

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, I did answer your question, there is no featureless void, but if there was as soon as something physical shows up, we can then have objective physical measurements - not until then, whether relative or not. You can never have such objective physical measurement with your moral world - it remain featureless void. In other words, you are comparing the physical with the non-physical.

OK - so try it this way. Person A and Person B both see Object D moving. Person A says "it is going 30 MPH." Person B says "it is going 20 MPH." Without using the surface of the planet as a reference point, can you indicate which is correct?

That is the point. You keep citing the surface of the planet as a reference point (without ever saying it) and then claiming you can make an objective measurement. In morality, if I likewise cite a particular moral framework, I can likewise make a ....

You know what... never mind. I'm being trolled and I should have stopped a long time ago.

I bet you feel good finally catching up to me! High honor indeed!

Ok, don't die too soon, I'm not done schooling ya yet!

Right so gay bashing is only relatively wrong. Got it...

Every moral claim can only be evaluated in the light of a specified moral framework.

What? So the view whether the Holocaust was good or bad has no answer?

Technique #1. It has an answer. It has no "absolute" answer. The question is itself meaningless.

Carp, get off your high horse, I understand what the theory of special relativity states. But that these physical realities in no way align with, confirm or justify non-physical moral beliefs being relative.

Actually, Seer, when you can make statements like, "there is no featureless void" and dodge a simple, physics 101 question about how relativity applies, you either don't understand it, or I am being trolled. I'm truly not sure which. I hope you are not the kind of person who trolls, but I also don't think you're a stupid man, so I am at a loss to understand your problem with the simple scenario.

And I am not talking about comparing morality to physics - I am talking about your statements related to physics alone.

[seer]

Every moral claim can only be evaluated in the light of a specified moral framework.



Technique #1. It has an answer. It has no "absolute" answer. The question is itself meaningless.

Ok, so there is no answer as to whether the Holocaust was wrong or not. Got it. And you really believe that the majority of people are going to jump on this philosophy?

Actually, Seer, when you can make statements like, "there is no featureless void" and dodge a simple, physics 101 question about how relativity applies, you either don't understand it, or I am being trolled. I'm truly not sure which. I hope you are not the kind of person who trolls, but I also don't think you're a stupid man, so I am at a loss to understand your problem with the simple scenario.

And I am not talking about comparing morality to physics - I am talking about your statements related to physics alone.

Carp, I edited my last post and you missed it: I understand what the theory of special relativity states. What I have been trying to understand is how that relates to whether morality is relative or not? What is the logical connection or follow on? There is relativity with physical objects/time therefore - what?

[carpedm9587]

Ok, so there is no answer as to whether the Holocaust was wrong or not. Got it.

No...you still really don't. The statements "there is no answer" and "there is no absolute answer" are not equivalent.

And you really believe that the majority of people are going to jump on this philosophy?

I think, as people truly come to understand it (which you have not demonstrated yet), they won't need to "jump on it." They will realize they've been doing it all along. Sort of how we realized relativity is "just how nature time/space work." Nothing changed but our understanding.

Carp, I edited my last post and you missed it: I understand what the theory of special relativity states. What I have been trying to understand is how that relates to whether morality is relative or not?

Sorry, Seer - but your comments/response indicate you don't understand it. If you did, you would have no problem with the thought experiment, "three objects in a void." You would be able to talk about assessing the speed of an object without a physical reference frame. You cannot do any of these things. What I cannot tell is whether you simply don't understand them, you are trolling me, or (a third possibility dawn on me), if you actually answer the questions, you have to acknowledge the parallel.

I'm not sure which it is. So far, except for your claims to understanding, I have not seen you post anything that actually shows understanding. I'm a teacher by profession, Seer. I know smoke when I see it.

What is the logical connection or follow on? There is relativity with physical objects/time therefore - what[/I]?

The discussion was an analogy. I chose relativity in physics because I assumed you understood it. In an analogy, you take a familiar thing, outline the similarities, and then discuss the differences. It helps foster understanding. So if I want to someone to understand what a router does (a telecommunications device), I might start with a railroad switching yard. The two are analogous. We begin by pointing out how they are similar to make the connection, and then go on to add the differences and details.

We couldn't get anywhere because your knowledge of physics is shallower than I thought, so I picked a baseline for the analogy that was not understood, dooming the exercise to failure.

Like I said - lack of knowledge is not something to be ashamed of. None of us knows everything. It would be helpful, however, to just say, "relativity is not my thing, so this analogy is not going to work."

[Zymologist]

You know, for a couple of old guys you two really do have amazing stamina.

[carpedm9587]

You know, for a couple of old guys you two really do have amazing stamina.

Oh you have no idea...

[Sparko]

Oh you have no idea...

reading your and seer's posts is like this scene in Joe v Volcano

[seer]

No...you still really don't. The statements "there is no answer" and "there is no absolute answer" are not equivalent.

Well in the end, there still is no right answers. Just preferences.

I think, as people truly come to understand it (which you have not demonstrated yet), they won't need to "jump on it." They will realize they've been doing it all along. Sort of how we realized relativity is "just how nature time/space work." Nothing changed but our understanding.

We will see.

Sorry, Seer - but your comments/response indicate you don't understand it. If you did, you would have no problem with the thought experiment, "three objects in a void." You would be able to talk about assessing the speed of an object without a physical reference frame. You cannot do any of these things. What I cannot tell is whether you simply don't understand them, you are trolling me, or (a third possibility dawn on me), if you actually answer the questions, you have to acknowledge the parallel.

I'm not sure which it is. So far, except for your claims to understanding, I have not seen you post anything that actually shows understanding. I'm a teacher by profession, Seer. I know smoke when I see it.

The discussion was an analogy. I chose relativity in physics because I assumed you understood it. In an analogy, you take a familiar thing, outline the similarities, and then discuss the differences. It helps foster understanding. So if I want to someone to understand what a router does (a telecommunications device), I might start with a railroad switching yard. The two are analogous. We begin by pointing out how they are similar to make the connection, and then go on to add the differences and details.

We couldn't get anywhere because your knowledge of physics is shallower than I thought, so I picked a baseline for the analogy that was not understood, dooming the exercise to failure.

Like I said - lack of knowledge is not something to be ashamed of. None of us knows everything. It would be helpful, however, to just say, "relativity is not my thing, so this analogy is not going to work."

That is bunk Carp, I have understood the theory of special relativity for years, EVERYTHING I questioned was about your analogy to moral relativism. Your analogy does not support the idea of moral relativism, or demonstrate that moral relativism is true. There is nothing that follows from special relativity, grounded in physical principles, that tells us whether moral ideals (non-physical) are relative or not. THAT has been my prime concern, remember early on I agreed that you believed that they were both relative - but that that tells us nothing.

[seer]

You know, for a couple of old guys you two really do have amazing stamina.

Brandy, lots of brandy...

[carpedm9587]

Well in the end, there still is no right answers. Just preferences.

Technique #1 (again)

We will see.

Probably not in my lifetime.

That is bunk Carp, I have understood the theory of special relativity for years, EVERYTHING I questioned was about your analogy to moral relativism. Your analogy does not support the idea of moral relativism, or demonstrate that moral relativism is true. There is nothing that follows from special relativity, grounded in physical principles, that tells us whether moral ideals (non-physical) are relative or not. THAT has been my prime concern, remember early on I agreed that you believed that they were both relative - but that that tells us nothing.

OK, Seer. I'll try one more time. Basic, Physics 101 question. Three objects moving through empty space (no other reference points to use).

Object A is moving 35 MPH relative to Object B
Object A is moving 25 MPH relative to Object C

Which is the correct speed of Object A?
Can the actual speed of Object A be determined? If yes, how?