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

Homophobic Trump...

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

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

    If I am a rational person, and I cannot find a rational argument for a moral conclusion - the moral conclusion should be abandoned. I have done so many times in my life. The fact that I have not let go of "random killing is immoral" is because I find the position to be rational and consistent with what I value (i.e., life/living).
    Carp, I don't believe for a moment that if you couldn't make a deductive argument supporting the immorality of random killing that you would abandon that belief.

    Or it is examining a belief to determine why I hold it and being able to articulate it to oneself - or abandoning if it if I can't. That is my process. That you doubt that is not my problem - it's yours. I truly do not care if you think I am rationalizing or actually thinking rationally. I know I am reasoning from premises to conclusion. Some of those were new ideas as an adult. Some of those where vestiges of childhood I needed to examine. Indeed, at 60 years old, I still sometimes encounter a belief/idea I hold that gets challenged by someone and I find I have never really put that belief through the test of reason. When I do - some get let go (like "god exists") and others get retained (like "random killing is immoral").

    Whether or not you believe me about the process is largely irrelevant.
    Carp all you have been doing is rationalizing in a post hoc fashion. You know the conclusion or goal you are shooting for then you go back and invent an argument that leads to that goal. And as we have seen one can justify almost any moral position in this fashion - like the killing of dissidents.
    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
      Eventually, I believe reasoning wins out and your views will increasingly become constrained to the few and the fanatical.
      What reasoning? Certainly not what you have been pawning off here, where you get to chose or invent the premises to support your foregone conclusions.
      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 seer View Post
        Carp, I don't believe for a moment that if you couldn't make a deductive argument supporting the immorality of random killing that you would abandon that belief.
        What you do or do not believe, Seer, is largely irrelevant to me. If I cannot defend a position rationally, I abandon it. I have not abandoned that one because it is rational and consistent with what I value. So your speculation on what "might" happen is nothing more than that - speculation that you cannot substantiate or show to be true. I have shifted several moral positions for exactly that reason on several occasions. It is possible I will do so again. I sincerely doubt that one will ever shift.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Carp all you have been doing is rationalizing in a post hoc fashion. You know the conclusion or goal you are shooting for then you go back and invent an argument that leads to that goal. And as we have seen one can justify almost any moral position in this fashion - like the killing of dissidents.
        Repeating it, Seer, doesn't change the reality. I've been through this - so you're not making an argument here. You're just making a wild assertion that you cannot substantiate - probably because you know I have no means to "prove" to you how I approach decision making - so I cannot "prove" you wrong.

        So, your assertion and opinion are duly noted. You're wrong. You cannot show yourself to be right. I cannot prove to you you're wrong. So the entire discussion is pointless, IMO.

        Do with that what you will.

        If you have some actual argumentation to be considered, I'll consider it. Otherwise - I leave you to your assertions.
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-20-2019, 03:25 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
          What you do or do not believe, Seer, is largely irrelevant to me. If I cannot defend a position rationally, I abandon it. I have not abandoned that one because it is rational and consitent with what I value. So your speculation on what "might" happen is nothing more than that - speculation you cannot substantiate or show to be true. I have shifted several moral positions for exactly that reason.
          Carp I simply don't believe that you would abandon that belief, just because you could not make a good argument for it. That would be scary if that was so...


          Repeating it, Seer, doesn't change the reality. I've been through this - so you're not making an argument here - you're just making an assertion you cannot substantiate - probably because you know I have no means to "prove" to you how I approach decision making.

          So your assertion and opinion are duly noted. You're wrong.

          Do with that what you will.
          What are you talking about? Of course you are inventing or choosing your premises to serve your conclusions, just as the Maoist is doing for his conclusions. That is why you both come to widely opposite conclusions using the same deductive reasoning.
          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
            No. I actually have no expectations, Sparko.
            Yet you do otherwise you wouldn't keep telling other people they are wrong or using the wrong method.
            By your own admission, rationality is not a part of your subjective decision-making
            I never said that. I said that it wouldn't matter if I did or not as long as I am satisfied with the result since it is only my preference after all.

            , so I am expressing my views because I have them.
            While ignoring everything I say and chopping my posts up into incomprehensible gibberish so you can avoid my points.


            I don't expect a single one of them to convince you.
            Because your arguments are inconsistent.


            They won't have a prayer of convincing you until you begin to actually apply reasoning.
            I do but you rejected my reasoning for my morals.

            Then, they might.
            But yours won't

            Unless you can point to an error in the reasoning.
            I have done so for about 30 pages now.


            Nope. You and Sparko (and others) keep coming back to this - but repeating it over and over again does not make it true.
            denying it doesn't make it go away.
            I know my moral views are my own.
            So are the reasons you hold them.

            I know to what they agree they align with those around me.
            Which doesn't matter since theirs are subjective also.

            As with everyone, I will do what I can to convince others to "see things my way," for reasons already discussed.
            So you have a need to make others like the same things you do. How sad.

            I cannot make that happen. When it doesn't: ignore, isolate/separate, contend.
            You just deny and dismiss.


            Back to "green is not blue." I'm really tempted to toss in a set of rolled eyes...
            You seem to be stuck on that phrase.



            You have a tendency to tell others how they should act, Sparko
            You seen to have a tendency to tell others how to think and what their preferences should be.
            - have you ever noticed that?
            Have you?


            But your statement is true absolutely/objectively, and false relatively/subjectively - hence "green is not blue."
            And you still don't get it. It is like you are reading an entirely different post from an alternate reality. It boggles the mind.



            You know - I know the Trump mantra is "contiually repeat a lie and you can make it true," but it doesn't actually make it true. You understand that, right?
            Now you are accusing me of lying? My opinion of what you are doing is just my subjective opinion Carp. How can that be a lie? It is what I see you doing.



            Thanks for the chat, Sparko.
            Great you can have the last word!

            You are free to point to the specific places where my arguments have been irrational
            See every post you made on the topic in this and other threads.

            - but other than tossing that out as you exit the thread,
            Well I had to come back one more time to chop up your post for you.

            I don't think you will be able to show it to be actually true.
            There is no 'true', Carp. remember?

            Indeed, I am not the one trying to make the argument that irrationality/non-rationality can be an objectively better decision-making process than rationality. So your closing barb rings more than a little hollow.
            never said better. There is no BETTER. When you start claiming there is better you are appealing to an objective standard. When it comes to a subjective value, there can be no better except to yourself. You are arguing Green is Blue Carp.

            ETA: Sparko - you might want to look a bit closer to home. I have responded to each of your posts, and in detail, and you fairly regularly just toss in these wide, sweeping, unsubstantiated rants and then claim the rational high ground and accuse me of irrationality and close-mindedness. If you can't respond to the points made - it might be better if you just say so, or quietly disconnect. These rants don't reflect that well on you, IMO.
            No ranting involved. Just tired of your irrational arguments and complete close-mindedness while pretending to be open minded.

            Have a day, Carp.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Yet you do otherwise you wouldn't keep telling other people they are wrong or using the wrong method.
              You confuse "trying" with "expecting"

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I never said that. I said that it wouldn't matter if I did or not as long as I am satisfied with the result since it is only my preference after all.
              Agreed. I misstated your last stated position and apologize. You position was that, when the decision is subjective, it doesn't matter. Which I think I have shown you actually don't live. At least - you haven't responded to any requests - so it actually DOES matter. And when the conclusion is inter-subjective, it may matter to many of us.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Because your arguments are inconsistent.
              Feel free to point out any logical inconsistencies. I suspect we will find a) they aren't actually inconsistent, b) you've misunderstood or misstated what I've said, c) you aren't making a rational argument (maybe because you think it doesn't matter?).

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I do but you rejected my reasoning for my morals.
              Oh - you have "reasons" Sparko. They just are rooted in sound and valid logic.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I have done so for about 30 pages now.
              No - you really haven't. But it is clear you think you have.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              denying it doesn't make it go away.
              I'll let the lurking reader decide, Sparko. I doubt you will be convinced by any rational argumentation.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              So are the reasons you hold them.
              Yes - the premises on which they are based are likewise subjective - but they are rationally lined to the conclusions and I can argue their rational basis. You basically "check the book."

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Which doesn't matter since theirs are subjective also.
              More "green is not blue"

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              So you have a need to make others like the same things you do. How sad.
              I have the same impulse all humans have: to find moral alignment with others within my society - because their moral views impact me inter-subjectively, as mine impact you.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Now you are accusing me of lying? My opinion of what you are doing is just my subjective opinion Carp. How can that be a lie? It is what I see you doing.
              A lie is a falsehood that is repeated even when it has been shown to be untrue. Since your statements are about my motivations, and I am pretty much the only one here who actually KNOWS my motivations, your continual insistence that you know what motivates me despite my assurances that you are wrong constitutes a lie, IMO. Deal with it. If you don't want to be accused of being a liar - you might want to consider not telling other people what they think, feel, or what motivates them.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              See every post you made on the topic in this and other threads.
              You have not shown a single error in my reasoning, Sparko. Not in a single post.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              There is no 'true', Carp. remember?
              Not something I have ever said.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              never said better. There is no BETTER. When you start claiming there is better you are appealing to an objective standard. When it comes to a subjective value, there can be no better except to yourself. You are arguing Green is Blue Carp.
              No - and the fact that you think so speaks volumes about how little you understand pretty much anything I've said.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              No ranting involved. Just tired of your irrational arguments and complete close-mindedness while pretending to be open minded.
              More mind reading. As I said, Sparko - make a rational argument that convinces, and actually addresses the positions taken, and you will convince. If you don't, you won't. You haven't made anything approaching such an argument, so you haven't convinced. I'm not just going to bow down to your superior wisdom because you want me to.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Have a day, Carp.
              Back atcha!
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-20-2019, 05:10 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 seer View Post
                Carp I simply don't believe that you would abandon that belief, just because you could not make a good argument for it. That would be scary if that was so...
                Believe whatever you wish, Seer.

                I don't find it scary to think that someone would actually follow reasoning to its rational conclusion. That idea doesn't scare me in the least. On the other hand, if you believed your god was telling you to kill your neighbor, would you do it? Sparko said yes - invoking Isaac as his example (pretty much as expected). So you want to talk scary...?

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                What are you talking about?
                I'm responding to your statement about a) how I reason, and b) what I might or might not do in a hypothetical situation.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Of course you are inventing or choosing your premises to serve your conclusions, just as the Maoist is doing for his conclusions. That is why you both come to widely opposite conclusions using the same deductive reasoning.
                As I noted - your opinion is duly noted.

                Get back to me when you have some rational arguments to make, Seer. This is getting more than tedious. I'm interested in exploring meta-ethical and moral positions. I'm not interested in entertaining your speculations about my thought processes. They're pointless.
                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
                  I don't find it scary to think that someone would actually follow reasoning to its rational conclusion. That idea doesn't scare me in the least. On the other hand, if you believed your god was telling you to kill your neighbor, would you do it? Sparko said yes - invoking Isaac as his example (pretty much as expected). So you want to talk scary...?
                  The fact is Carp, when you begin the reasoning process with self-serving and subjective premises one can go anywhere. Like our Maoist friend.

                  Get back to me when you have some rational arguments to make, Seer. This is getting more than tedious. I'm interested in exploring meta-ethical and moral positions. I'm not interested in entertaining your speculations about my thought processes.
                  I made a rational argument showing that you argue in a post hoc fashion where anything, any moral position, is possible. You did this recently with your genome argument, applying an arbitrary condition and restriction so it would lead to your desired conclusion...
                  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 seer View Post
                    The fact is Carp, when you begin the reasoning process with self-serving and subjective premises one can go anywhere. Like our Maoist friend.
                    I begin the process with subjective premises that are true. I value life. I value liberty. I value happiness. They are basic values held in common with most humans I have encountered. They are not "selected" or "chosen" - they simply are. "self-serving" is your claim, which you cannot show and cannot substantiate. So....

                    And, frankly, you are doing exactly the same thing - only your "self-serving" premises are "god wants me to do X" and "god is my moral authority" and "I value the bible." You have articulating valuing "moral certainty" because you don't want to even consider that your certainty might be misplaced. All of that is no more or less "self-serving" then the premises that form the basis of my moral framework.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    I made a rational argument showing that you argue in a post hoc fashion where anything, any moral position, is possible. You did this recently with your genome argument, applying an arbitrary condition and restriction so it would lead to your desired conclusion...
                    No - you didn't. But you apparently think you did because you keep claiming it is so. You just made an assertion. I provided you an alternate possibility - but you dismissed it, presumably because it doesn't fit your narrative. Your narrative doesn't interest me.

                    And if this is all you can talk to - I'll leave the last word to you. This exchange is consumately boring and essentially content free. I'd prefer to discuss the merits of the arguments then your speculations on my cognitive process and motivations.

                    ETA: Seer - is it at all possible that you are heading down this content-free path because you have finally realized you actually have no argument against the reality of subjective/relative morality?
                    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
                      I begin the process with subjective premises that are true. I value life. I value liberty. I value happiness. They are basic values held in common with most humans I have encountered. They are not "selected" or "chosen" - they simply are. "self-serving" is your claim, which you cannot show and cannot substantiate. So....
                      And so does the Maoist, and his premises are true for him. And they are not simply there. They are chosen to begin the the process for the desired end. If they simply were there then how can we have different premises?

                      And, frankly, you are doing exactly the same thing - only your "self-serving" premises are "god wants me to do X" and "god is my moral authority" and "I value the bible." You have articulating valuing "moral certainty" because you don't want to even consider that your certainty might be misplaced. All of that is no more or less "self-serving" then the premises that form the basis of my moral framework.
                      Well in your relative world it doesn't matter anyway...


                      No - you didn't. But you apparently think you did because you keep claiming it is so. You just made an assertion. I provided you an alternate possibility - but you dismissed it, presumably because it doesn't fit your narrative. Your narrative doesn't interest me.

                      And if this is all you can talk to - I'll leave the last word to you. This exchange is consumately boring and essentially content free. I'd prefer to discuss the merits of the arguments then your speculations on my cognitive process and motivations.

                      ETA: Seer - is it at all possible that you are heading down this content-free path because you have finally realized you actually have no argument against the reality of subjective/relative morality?
                      Really Carp, this borders on the delusional. You clearly did this with your genome argument. And it is obvious, the difference between you and the Maoist is that you choose your respective premises to get to your desired conclusions. If not you would both be on the same page.
                      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 seer View Post
                        And so does the Maoist, and his premises are true for him.
                        Correct. After all - morality is relative/subjective.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        And they are not simply there.
                        I have no idea what this means.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        They are chosen to begin the the process for the desired end.
                        Your unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) assumption

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        If they simply were there then how can we have different premises?
                        Because we are different humans - and different humans can have different subjective premises. Most of us align - we do not ALL align or align perfectly.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Well in your relative world it doesn't matter anyway...
                        More green is not blue... see my previous responses

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Really Carp, this borders on the delusional. You clearly did this with your genome argument.
                        I did indeed err in my genome argument. I failed to think through the basis for your subjective/relative moral framework, and realize that, since it is not based in reason, an argument based in reason cannot be applied to convince. Your posts have reminded me of that, which is why I dropped the discussion.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        And it is obvious, the difference between you and the Maoist is that you choose your respective premises to get to your desired conclusions. If not you would both be on the same page.
                        Clearly, you do not understand the concept of "relative/subjective," or you would understand the ridiculousness of this claim. I mean, after all, if we weren't choosing our likes/dislikes, we'd all like pizza. We'd all value god. We'd all be the exact same robotic clones. Do you have any idea how off the rails this argument is...?

                        There is nothing to guarantee alignment of what we value. It is subjective/relative, remember? It is rooted in the breadth of our experiences from birth. Meanwhile, your assumption that these values are purposely chosen to create the result we want continues to be an unsubstantiated/unproven assertion on your part. Given that I have now told you that is not how I function several times (nor is it how anyone I know I have talked to about these issues functions), and you continue to insist you know my motivations better than I - I have to say what I said to Sparko - continuing to repeat this lie doesn't make it true - and repeatedly lying to "claim a win" doesn't become you. You certainly are free to keep doing it, as is Sparko. I just find it a cheap and dirty tactic for engaging in what should be a rational discussion.

                        ETA: in the past, you have referred to this type of exchange as "heated." Just to be clear, I am not angry or upset. You are free to post however you wish. What and how you post reflects on you - not me. I just find perpetuating this type of lie-based tactic to be a sad reflection on you, Jim. You can do better. My opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
                        Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-20-2019, 06:28 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
                          I did indeed err in my genome argument. I failed to think through the basis for your subjective/relative moral framework, and realize that, since it is not based in reason, an argument based in reason cannot be applied to convince. Your posts have reminded me of that, which is why I dropped the discussion.
                          This is exactly what I am talking about, you use a subjective premise, a restrictive premise, that leads to your desired end. It has nothing to with reason. Why must I accept your arbitrary condition based on the genome? Why not use gender: male+male sexual interaction=immoral, female+female=immoral. This is not reason on your part Carp, it is stacking the deck; selecting a premise that leads to your desired end. And just like the Maoist you choose your premises knowing where the argument leads because you are arguing for a specific conclusion. Completely self-serving.
                          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 seer View Post
                            This is exactly what I am talking about, you use a subjective premise, a restrictive premise, that leads to your desired end.
                            Repeating the lie doesn't make it true, Seer.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            It has nothing to with reason.
                            Yes, it does.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Why must I accept your arbitrary condition based on the genome?
                            There is no "must' about it. I've already acknowledged it was an argument destined to fail, because it is based on reason. It has no application to you because that is not how you arrive at moral conclusions. You've made that clear, and seemingly defended irrationality/non-rationality as "just as good" when the conclusions are subjective. As I have shown multiple times, it is unlikely that you actually live that way.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Why not use gender: male+male sexual interaction=immoral, female+female=immoral.
                            No rational argument is going to convince you, Seer. Your moral framework is not based on reason. It's a "follow the herd" moral model. You will only be convinced if someone manages to convince you that what you think the herd wants is not what the herd actually wants (which seems unlikely), or if you stop valuing "what the herd thinks" over pretty much everything else. (again, seems rather unlikely). Again, in this case, your "herd" is a collection of a few dozen unknown men who wrote 200-3500 years ago, whose original writings are lost to time, whose identities are largely unknown, and who wrote in a different culture and language.

                            So moral discussion with you about specific moral issues are largely pointless - leaving only ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            This is not reason on your part Carp, it is stacking the deck; selecting a premise that leads to your desired end.
                            Repeating the lie doesn't make it true, Seer.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            And just like the Maoist you choose your premises knowing where the argument leads because you are arguing for a specific conclusion. Completely self-serving.
                            Repeating the lie multiple times doesn't make it true, Seer.

                            ETA: I'm calling it a night. I'll check in again in the morning.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-20-2019, 07:04 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
                              I begin the process with subjective premises that are true. I value life. I value liberty. I value happiness. They are basic values held in common with most humans I have encountered. They are not "selected" or "chosen" - they simply are. "self-serving" is your claim, which you cannot show and cannot substantiate. So....
                              If that were true we would have never had slavery or Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union, or Communist China, or Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Tianamin Square, 911, school shootings, abortion, murder, etc.

                              Not to mention appealing to what you think "most humans value" sounds suspiciously like "following the herd"
                              Last edited by Sparko; 03-21-2019, 07:30 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                There is no "must' about it. I've already acknowledged it was an argument destined to fail, because it is based on reason. It has no application to you because that is not how you arrive at moral conclusions. You've made that clear, and seemingly defended irrationality/non-rationality as "just as good" when the conclusions are subjective. As I have shown multiple times, it is unlikely that you actually live that way.
                                This is a falsehood Carp, it failed because you subjectively set the parameters so it would fail. You are completely self-serving, then you call that reason.

                                No rational argument is going to convince you, Seer. Your moral framework is not based on reason. It's a "follow the herd" moral model. You will only be convinced if someone manages to convince you that what you think the herd wants is not what the herd actually wants (which seems unlikely), or if you stop valuing "what the herd thinks" over pretty much everything else. (again, seems rather unlikely). Again, in this case, your "herd" is a collection of a few dozen unknown men who wrote 200-3500 years ago, whose original writings are lost to time, whose identities are largely unknown, and who wrote in a different culture and language.
                                How is subjectively choosing your own premises for your desired end reason? It is no more than an exercise in self-justification. And you did it with the genome question, as I just demonstrated. It was an arbitrary restriction meant to prove your conclusion. If I started with the premise that I believe that only sexual relations between a married man and a woman is moral and deductively argued to the conclusion that all other forms of sexuality were then immoral you would balk, you would see that as self-serving. But that is what you have been doing all along. To bad you are blind to it.


                                Repeating the lie doesn't make it true, Seer.
                                What lie? I just proved it with your arbitrary choice of genome. Why not use gender? Because you had a desired end.

                                Repeating the lie multiple times doesn't make it true, Seer.
                                Of course it is true. Why do you and the Maoist have different premises? He chooses his, and you yours. And you both already know the conclusion you are shooting for. In other words Carp, you are simply making up your own morality, choosing your premises that lead to your desired end then calling it reason. Just like the Maoist. The whole process only serves to tell us what you subjectively prefer. No better or worse than what one finds in the herd.
                                Last edited by seer; 03-21-2019, 07:36 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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X