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 seer View Post
    I asked Carp this a while back:

    if our famous Maoist made a better argument than you showing that the collective is much more important than an individual human life, and that to protect the collective it may in fact be necessary to exterminate or imprison dissidents - would you then reject your valuing of human life?


    The moral conclusion flows from what we value. For the Maoist to get me to change my stance on "random killing" they would have to convince me that my valuing life is pointless or misguided. Then my moral framework might change.

    Premise: what we value
    Conclusion: arrived at by reason (hopefully) to sort action into ought and ought not

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Of course not, proving that, in theory at least, that your moral sense is not wed to reasoning.
    You've proven nothing of the sort.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    You would reject the Maoist's reasoning no matter how good his argument
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    .

    I wonder how he would answer...
    Wonder no more.

    BTW - this kind of collective vs. individual life decision is made all the time. Note, for example, the entire Khashoggi incident in which the reason for NOT calling Saudi Arabia to task was not just "collective vs. individual," it was "too much money involved." I did not see a great deal of objection coming from too many people to that line of reasoning - even those who believe morality is absolute/objective.

    So now I'm the curious one - did Trump act properly in giving Saudi Arabia a pass and remaining financially tied to the Saudi royal family? Is $400B now the price of an individual man's life - according to your so-called absolute/objective metric, of course...
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-18-2019, 11:42 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 carpedm9587 View Post
      The moral conclusion flows from what we value. For the Maoist to get me to change my stance on "random killing" they would have to convince me that my valuing life is pointless or misguided. Then my moral framework might change.

      Premise: what we value
      Conclusion: arrived at by reason (hopefully) to sort action into ought and ought not.
      So in theory you could reject the value for individual human life based on a logical argument? And I'm not talking about random killing, but the killing of dissidents who disturb the social order by contrary political speech or ideas... Which is a violation of Politically Correctness, the term that Mao coined.


      You've proven nothing of the sort.
      You just said that you are opened to be convinced.


      BTW - this kind of collective vs. individual life decision is made all the time. Note, for example, the entire Khashoggi incident in which the reason for NOT calling Saudi Arabia to task was not just "collective vs. individual," it was "too much money involved." I did not see a great deal of objection coming from too many people to that line of reasoning - even those who believe morality is absolute/objective.

      So now I'm the curious one - did Trump act properly in giving Saudi Arabia a pass and remaining financially tied to the Saudi royal family? Is $400B now the price of an individual man's life - according to your so-called absolute/objective metric, of course...
      This wasn't about the collective, the Prince just didn't like being criticized. The point is, in our system we put individual life and rights above the collective (unless the individual violate the social contract). In Communist countries the collective reigns supreme. The State, not the individual, holds primacy.
      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
        So in theory you could reject the value for individual human life based on a logical argument?
        In theory - anyone can change a moral position on the basis of a change in their underlying valuing, or someone finding an error in their reasoning.
        In practice - what we value is not trivially changed. They are deeply rooted things that derive from our experiences.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        And I'm not talking about random killing, but the killing of dissidents who disturb the social order by contrary political speech or ideas... Which is a violation of Politically Correctness, the term that Mao coined.
        People have arrived at moral positions I would consider "immoral" throughout history, Seer. You have arrived at your position about homosexuality, which I consider deeply immoral. People have determined that sacrificing the one for the many is moral. People have determined that sacrificing the one for enough money is moral. There are several ways by which this can happen.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        You just said that you are opened to be convinced.
        Your statement was "proving that, in theory at least, that your moral sense is not wed to reasoning." Which is what I responded to. You just shifted the goal posts. "open to be convinced" is not the same as "not wed to reason." If someone is going to convince me, they are going to have to use reason to get there. I arrive at my moral conclusions by reasoning on what I value. I consider anyone who does not to be abandoning the heart of morality: the reasoning of a sentient mind. If they aren't going to get to moral conclusions by reason - they might as well flip Sparko's coin.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        This wasn't about the collective, the Prince just didn't like being criticized. The point is, in our system we put individual life and rights above the collective (unless the individual violate the social contract). In Communist countries the collective reigns supreme. The State, not the individual, holds primacy.
        Oh we like to pat ourselves on our backs about this moral superiority of the west, but we will take out any number of innocents to kill a desired target, and we will ignore any amount of immoral action on the part of other nations if it will get us our oil and/or our trade deals. We'll buy our clothes manufactured in sweat shops if it will save us a few dollars. The west will sacrifice the individual to the needs of the herd just as quickly as communistic countries, and rationalize it by one argument or another - all the while claiming moral superiority. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
        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 - they are subjective to the individual, and inter-subjective (I don't remember who coined that term - maybe Star?) to the society/culture/group.



          Yes.



          Ahhh... you managed to sneak in another "green is not blue" complaint. Really, Sparko - this is all you and Seer have. Morality cannot be relative/subjective, because then it wouldn't be absolute/objective. That car can't be green, because then it wouldn't be blue!

          You still don't have an argument.
          I wasn't making an argument, I was making an observation which you again dismissed and refused to acknowledge.

          If morals are all subjective to each individual, then so are the reasons they come up with to justify those morals. You already admitted that each person can come to complete different conclusions using different reasons and they are all equally valid. The obvious conclusion is that reasoning doesn't matter to anyone other than to each individual. If that is the case then neither would flipping a coin. That would be a valid reason for that person whether you agreed or not.


          My response was about the distinction between a purely random event (flipping a coin) and an influenced event (what we value and how we come to moral conclusions). If someone decides "flipping a coin" is the ideal strategy, and nothing will convince the otherwise, then they will be out of sync with most of us about 50% of the time. They will find themselves quickly ignored, isolated/separated, or contended with - depending on the specific moral conclusion in question.
          So what if nothing will convince them? Does that make their morality any less valid or true than yours? If morals are subjective then the answer has to be "no" - so it doesn't matter what reason they use to come to their morals. I don't see why you can't just acknowledge that.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            I wasn't making an argument, I was making an observation which you again dismissed and refused to acknowledge.
            I am not aware of dismissing or refusing to acknowledge anything said that is actually true.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            If morals are all subjective to each individual, then so are the reasons they come up with to justify those morals.
            The reasoning process is not subjective. The laws of reason are pretty well documented and are themselves absolute/objective (i.e., principle of non-contradiction, structure of a syllogism, concept of valid and sound, etc.). But if the premises of an argument are subjective, the conclusion necessarily is. So you've just basically said, "if moral conclusions are based on subjective premises, then moral conclusions are subjective as well." I've never said otherwise.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            You already admitted that each person can come to complete different conclusions using different reasons and they are all equally valid.
            No - I haven't. They are NOT equally valid. They are differently valid to the individuals assessing them. The concept of "equally valid" in an absolute/objective sense is meaningless because morality is not absolute/objective.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            The obvious conclusion is that reasoning doesn't matter to anyone other than to each individual.
            Since your argument is flawed, so it your conclusion.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            If that is the case then neither would flipping a coin.
            Flipping a coin is a random act. Moral reasoning is an influenced and reasoned act (normally).

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            That would be a valid reason for that person whether you agreed or not.
            Again, a person who is "flipping a coin" is exercising about as much moral reasoning as the person "aligning to that book." They are certainly free to base their moral decision making that way. Knowing that simply tells me that attempting to reason with them is an exercise in folly, leaving only ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend - something you and Seer have amply demonstrated.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            So what if nothing will convince them?
            Then nothing will convince them and the moral positions remain unaligned. That leaves ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Does that make their morality any less valid or true than yours?
            Subjectively, their moral conclusion is less valid than mine. Objectively, there is no such measure since morality is not objective.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            If morals are subjective then the answer has to be "no" - so it doesn't matter what reason they use to come to their morals. I don't see why you can't just acknowledge that.
            Sparko - the answer is "does not apply." You are trying to measure the length of a football field using a scale. You are trying to assess "validity" in absolute terms for a subjective frame of reference. Man A is standing on the surface of the planet and says "that car is moving 70 mph." Man B is standing on the surface of the sun (now THAT would be a trick) and says, "that car is moving 67,000 mph." You are asking "which man's speed statement is more valid?" The fact is each is perfectly valid in their own frame of reference. There is no way to compare the two observations unless we choose a third reference point from which to make the assessment.

            In other words - you are asking a question that has no answer. You might as well be asking, "is it further to New York or by bus?" The problem, Sparko, is that you and Seer are so deeply entrenched in absolute/objective thinking, you cannot even see that you continually default to that world, trying to assess/force morality into that model. You constantly note that there is no way to call that moral position more or less valid than this one. From an absolute perspective, that is 100% correct. That doesn't make them "equally valid." It means their validity cannot be assessed from an absolute/objective perspective. Using mathematical language, their validity is undetermined. It cannot be said to be "equal" because that presumes a frame of reference from which to make that assessment. It CAN be assessed from a third, defined, perspective - but not from an absolute/objective one because there is no such thing - just as there is actually no such thing as an absolute perspective from which to measure speed.

            As a result, you ask nonsensical questions, and you make non-argument arguments. I have continually agreed with many (most?) of the observations you and Seer have made. What you don't see is that you aren't really saying anything.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-18-2019, 01:36 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 am not aware of dismissing or refusing to acknowledge anything said that is actually true.
              you're playing with me aren't you? Your "green is not blue" dismissal whenever you don't want to actually answer or acknowledge a point.


              The reasoning process is not subjective. The laws of reason are pretty well documented and are themselves absolute/objective (i.e., principle of non-contradiction, structure of a syllogism, concept of valid and sound, etc.). But if the premises of an argument are subjective, the conclusion necessarily is. So you've just basically said, "if moral conclusions are based on subjective premises, then moral conclusions are subjective as well." I've never said otherwise.
              now you are just trying to play semantic games to avoid the point. This is what I dislike about debating anything with you carp. You refuse to engage head on with what people say and start playing word game and purposefully misunderstanding them, or trying to nitpick irrelevant points. It is like nailing jello to a tree to discuss anything with you. That is why these threads go on for dozens of pages. You know exactly what I mean.

              If A comes up with a logical reason why he thinks X is moral and B comes up with a logical reason why X is immoral, and if morals are subjective, then both A and B's reasons are equally valid even though they come to opposite conclusions. Sure each will think the other one is wrong, but that doesn't matter because if morals are subjective then the reasons people come to them don't matter. Even if they have stupid reasons, since there is no actual good or evil, and morals are just personal values, then the reasons you have those values only matter to yourself. If I want to think having sex with pigs is immoral, then for me it is immoral, right? So what does it matter if I think it is immoral because "pigs can't give consent" or because "the sky is blue?" - My moral value of "sex with pigs is wrong" is still my subjective moral value. Even if you don't like my reasoning.


              No - I haven't. They are NOT equally valid. They are differently valid to the individuals assessing them. The concept of "equally valid" in an absolute/objective sense is meaningless because morality is not absolute/objective.
              More word games? really? They are equally valid to each individual as to helping them come to a moral stance.




              Flipping a coin is a random act. Moral reasoning is an influenced and reasoned act (normally).
              Sure that is what you believe, and for you that is fine. But for me, I say flipping a coin is the best way to determine morality because Ooompa the pirate fairy controls all coin flips. Since what I believe is moral is subjective to me, what does it matter? If I flip a coin and decide eating bacon is a sin, that is my subjective moral code, not yours, so you have no say in how I come to my values. You may not like it, but I might not like the way you come to your conclusions because I think you are insane so your logic is flawed. Anyone who doesn't believe in Oompa has to be insane and I can't trust their logic.



              Again, a person who is "flipping a coin" is exercising about as much moral reasoning as the person "aligning to that book." They are certainly free to base their moral decision making that way. Knowing that simply tells me that attempting to reason with them is an exercise in folly, leaving only ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend - something you and Seer have amply demonstrated.
              I don't see you changing your mind. If someone can come up with a completely different conclusion than you, that would not change your mind. You would just keep arguing for your view. These threads are ample evidence of that.

              Then nothing will convince them and the moral positions remain unaligned. That leaves ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend.
              Again, "changing someone's mind" has nothing to do with how correct someone's moral code is. That seems to be something you are stuck on.



              Subjectively, their moral conclusion is less valid than mine. Objectively, there is no such measure since morality is not objective.
              Exactly. Your subjective values mean diddly squat. Neither do the reasons you hold those values. They are entirely subjective to you.


              Sparko - the answer is "does not apply." You are trying to measure the length of a football field using a scale. You are trying to assess "validity" in absolute terms for a subjective frame of reference. Man A is standing on the surface of the planet and says "that car is moving 70 mph." Man B is standing on the surface of the sun (now THAT would be a trick) and says, "that car is moving 67,000 mph." You are asking "which man's speed statement is more valid?" The fact is each is perfectly valid in their own frame of reference. There is no way to compare the two observations unless we choose a third reference point from which to make the assessment.

              In other words - you are asking a question that has no answer. You might as well be asking, "is it further to New York or by bus?"
              No Carp. I am trying to point out to you that YOU are the one doing that when you keep arguing that basing my morals "on a book" is somehow less valid than "using reasoning" -- If morals are subjective than there is no difference. You are the one who keeps arguing that your method is more valid. I am saying it is not.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                you're playing with me aren't you? Your "green is not blue" dismissal whenever you don't want to actually answer or acknowledge a point.
                No. The "green is not blue" is used whenever you and/or Seer drift back into any argument that is rooted in "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." You do it over and over and over again, and I don't think you even know you're doing it. It's pointless to continually correct you - especially given that I actually AGREE with you. "Green is not blue" is a convenient shorthand.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                If A comes up with a logical reason why he thinks X is moral and B comes up with a logical reason why X is immoral, and if morals are subjective, then both A and B's reasons are equally valid even though they come to opposite conclusions.
                No - there is no frame of reference from which to make this assessment. The best you can say is that each will see their own views as valid and the views of the other as invalid. Equality cannot be determined or assessed without a reference frame.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Sure each will think the other one is wrong, but that doesn't matter because if morals are subjective then the reasons people come to them don't matter.
                The first part is true. The second part is not necessarily true.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Even if they have stupid reasons, since there is no actual good or evil, and morals are just personal values, then the reasons you have those values only matter to yourself.
                More green is not blue. We already know that subjective/relative morality is individualized and primarily matters to the holder of those views. That's the meaning of subjective/relative - so you're not saying anything I haven't agreed with a dozen times over.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                If I want to think having sex with pigs is immoral, then for me it is immoral, right?
                It might be. I, for example, have no moral prohibitions against beastiality per se. I just have a culturally induced "ick" factor.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                So what does it matter if I think it is immoral because "pigs can't give consent" or because "the sky is blue?" - My moral value of "sex with pigs is wrong" is still my subjective moral value. Even if you don't like my reasoning.
                Correct. I have never said otherwise.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                They are equally valid to each individual as to helping them come to a moral stance.
                No Sparko. "Equally" is a statement of equality. There is no frame of reference from which to make this assessment. You are trying to make an absolute/objective assessment of a relative/subjective reality. It doesn't work that way. Their relative validity cannot be assessed. The best you can say is "each person will see their view as valid.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Sure that is what you believe, and for you that is fine. But for me, I say flipping a coin is the best way to determine morality because Ooompa the pirate fairy controls all coin flips. Since what I believe is moral is subjective to me, what does it matter?
                It ultimately doesn't matter to me - except that knowing the basis for your moral framework tells me what is and is not worthwhile to attempt with you. Reason is useless if the moral conclusions have not been arrived at using reason.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                If I flip a coin and decide eating bacon is a sin, that is my subjective moral code, not yours, so you have no say in how I come to my values. You may not like it, but I might not like the way you come to your conclusions because I think you are insane so your logic is flawed. Anyone who doesn't believe in Oompa has to be insane and I can't trust their logic.
                Correct. Your moral framework is derived whatever way you derive it. How you derive it merely informs what I can and cannot expect to achieve in discussion with you. It might influence me to slip you a weighted coin.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                I don't see you changing your mind.
                About what?

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                If someone can come up with a completely different conclusion than you, that would not change your mind. You would just keep arguing for your view. These threads are ample evidence of that.
                My mind changes when someone provides an argument that shows my reasoning to be flawed in some way. So far, neither you nor Seer have accomplished that.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Again, "changing someone's mind" has nothing to do with how absolutely/objectively correct someone's moral code is. That seems to be something you are stuck on.
                And you just went back to absolute/objective assessments. I took the liberty of inserting the terms you left out (but implied) in your statement. I can easily determine how correct someone else's moral code is against mine - which is what we all do. Your position against homosexuality is immoral. No doubt about it in my moral framework - and you have never made an argument to convince me otherwise. What I cannot say is "your position against homosexuality is absolutely/objectively immoral." That would require an absolute/objective framework, and none has been shown to exist. I CAN say, "you position against homosexuality is consider moral as measured by the moral framework outlined in the bible, as interpreted by more conservative evangelicals." I can say "you position against homosexuality is considered moral as measured by the cultural norms of most Jamaicans."

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Exactly. Your subjective values mean diddly squat. Neither do the reasons you hold those values. They are entirely subjective to you.
                That doesn't mean "they mean diddly squat" Sparko. It might mean "they mean diddly squat to Sparko," if that's how you feel. They might mean diddly squat to Seer, if that's how he feels. That would be natural given that you make your assessments against "the book." But then again, your assessing against the book "means diddly squat" to me, too. I consider it an irrational way to arrive at a moral framework, so you have zero hope of convincing me to your view. That's basically how it works. So the problem is....?

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                No Carp. I am trying to point out to you that YOU are the one doing that when you keep arguing that basing my morals "on a book" is somehow less valid than "using reasoning" -- If morals are subjective than there is no difference. You are the one who keeps arguing that your method is more valid. I am saying it is not.
                I said nothing about "less valid." Sparko. If I did, anywhere in any post, I would be being inconsistent. If I did so - then I erred. Point it out and I will acknowledge it. What I DID say is that I consider a moral conclusion that is rationally arrived at to be a better way to arrive at a moral conclusion. I believe that because it provides an avenue for discourse and potential alignment of moral positions. The person who arrives at moral frameworks irrationally is not much better than the person that picks a car using "their gut" and the smile on the salesman's face. You're not going to talk that person out of that purchase by appealing to cost, maintenance records, safety issues, or anything else. They're just "going by feel."

                Likewise, the person who flips a coin or points to "that book" is not arriving at moral conclusions rationally, so a rational approach to discussing morality will be useless with them. I missed that in my earlier discussions with you and Seer - so I drifted into attempting to use reason and logic to compare moral positions. The exercise was doomed before it ever started - because I was not taking to people who use reason to arrive at moral positions. If I hope to influence you, I have only a small number of avenues:

                1) convince you that your book doesn't mean what you think it means (which is highly unlikely and probably not even true for many topics).
                2) convince you not to base your morality on "the book." (which has a snowball's chance in death valley so long as you see it as the "inerrant word of your supreme being."
                3) convince you that this supreme being doesn't exist (which I also assess as "not much of a chance.")

                Ergo it teaches me that discussions about specific moral principles with you and Seer are pointless. Might as well spend my time weeding my garden. The only reasonable alternatives left with you and Seer are to ignore (which given our situation is adequate for most topics), isolate/separate (our lives do not intertwine other than here, so no problem there) and/or contend. The latter is mostly about limiting the impact of your moral views when I consider them immoral. I do that in the ballot box (as do you), and it is the ONLY rational purpose for engaging in a discussion about specific moral positions. While I do not have much hope of convincing you or Seer, it is much more possible that I will influence the lurking reader who DOES base their moral conclusions on reason, and can see the absence of it in your posts and Seer's.
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-18-2019, 02:45 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
                  No. The "green is not blue" is used whenever you and/or Seer drift back into any argument that is rooted in "relative/subjective morality is not absolute/objective." You do it over and over and over again, and I don't think you even know you're doing it. It's pointless to continually correct you - especially given that I actually AGREE with you. "Green is not blue" is a convenient shorthand.
                  except we are not saying that. You keep reading that but it is not what we are saying.

                  If A comes up with a logical reason why he thinks X is moral and B comes up with a logical reason why X is immoral, and if morals are subjective, then both A and B's reasons are equally valid even though they come to opposite conclusions.
                  No - there is no frame of reference from which to make this assessment. The best you can say is that each will see their own views as valid and the views of the other as invalid. Equality cannot be determined or assessed without a reference frame.
                  THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING!!!!!! They are equally valid for each person subjectively. Neither is "better" or "worse" BECAUSE IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE. Dang Carp. Are you that blind as that you don't see what I have been saying over and over? That no logical argument for a moral stance is better than any other. Each person sees their own argument as "best" and therefore their own moral outlook as best. So basically their reason for believing a particular moral view is irrelevant to anyone other than themselves. No argument is better than any other. Which means if someone wants to believe that flipping a coin is the best reason for their moral view, then that is just as "valid" as any other reason to them.


                  The first part is true. The second part is not necessarily true.
                  Yes it is. because whether someone uses math or flips a coin to determine their moral stance, the moral stance they come to is just a subjective view that is neither right nor wrong. Even if they "get it wrong" from your point of view, it doesn't matter because their morals are not your morals. So the reason doesn't matter.




                  More green is not blue. We already know that subjective/relative morality is individualized and primarily matters to the holder of those views. That's the meaning of subjective/relative - so you're not saying anything I haven't agreed with a dozen times over.
                  You keep SAYING that, but then you argue that seer and I are somehow inferior morally because we use a book to come to our morality. If you truly believed what you keep preaching, you would realize that our reasons for our moral stances only matter to ourselves, not to you so you not liking our methodology is like me telling you that you are wrong for liking chocolate.


                  If I want to think having sex with pigs is immoral, then for me it is immoral, right?
                  It might be. I, for example, have no moral prohibitions against beastiality per se. I just have a culturally induced "ick" factor.
                  What do you mean "it might be?" If it is my moral stance that sex with pigs is immoral, then it is immoral for me. How can that be "might be?"

                  So what does it matter if I think it is immoral because "pigs can't give consent" or because "the sky is blue?" - My moral value of "sex with pigs is wrong" is still my subjective moral value. Even if you don't like my reasoning.
                  Correct. I have never said otherwise.
                  So if I flip a coin, to determine that sex with pigs is immoral, then the result is still the same. The REASON DOESN'T MATTER.


                  No Sparko. "Equally" is a statement of equality. There is no frame of reference from which to make this assessment. You are trying to make an absolute/objective assessment of a relative/subjective reality. It doesn't work that way. Their relative validity cannot be assessed. The best you can say is "each person will see their view as valid.
                  again you seem to be either misreading me or playing stupid. the frame of reference is compared to each individual. My reason for my moral view is valid to me. Your reason for your moral view is valid for you. Your reasoning is not any better than mine. You claiming that you you "logic" is not any better than me flipping a coin.




                  It ultimately doesn't matter to me - except that knowing the basis for your moral framework tells me what is and is not worthwhile to attempt with you. Reason is useless if the moral conclusions have not been arrived at using reason.
                  Well as nearly 50 pages show, you are no more likely to change your mind on your views than I am. And saying I am basing my morals on God IS A REASON and is using REASON.

                  1. God created me
                  2. God knows how he designed me to act
                  3. God revealed his moral code to mankind in the bible
                  4. In order to live a live in harmony with God's purpose, I should follow his moral code.

                  See? completely reasonable and logical. You merely describing it as "following a book" doesn't mean it isn't based on logic or reason. It is just reasons you don't agree with. No different than if you and Mao come to different logical conclusions and moral outlooks on killing people.

                  Correct. Your moral framework is derived whatever way you derive it. How you derive it merely informs what I can and cannot expect to achieve in discussion with you. It might influence me to slip you a weighted coin.



                  About what?



                  My mind changes when someone provides an argument that shows my reasoning to be flawed in some way. So far, neither you nor Seer have accomplished that.
                  If you convinced us that God doesn't exist or that the bible got it wrong you could change our minds. How is that any different than if someone showed your reasons to be flawed?




                  And you just went back to absolute/objective assessments. I took the liberty of inserting the terms you left out (but implied) in your statement.
                  Oh I should THANK YOU for changing my argument and adding words? My point is that you seem stuck on being able to change someone's minds as making your methodology somehow more important or better than mine based on a book. That is what you keep arguing. Except as you just inadvertently admitted by adding the word Objective to my sentence, it is YOU who keeps arguing for some sort of objective standard that is BETTER than mine (that being able to "change someone's mind" makes your moral methodology "better" than mine. But if morals are subjective then it DOESN'T, DOES IT? SO STOP ARGUING AS IF IT DOES.




                  What I DID say is that I consider a moral conclusion that is rationally arrived at to be a better way to arrive at a moral conclusion. I believe that because it provides an avenue for discourse and potential alignment of moral positions. The person who arrives at moral frameworks irrationally is not much better than the person that picks a car using "their gut" and the smile on the salesman's face. You're not going to talk that person out of that purchase by appealing to cost, maintenance records, safety issues, or anything else. They're just "going by feel."
                  See above, you are arguing for some objective standard that you think I should give a crap about. BETTER. If morals are subjective than your reasons for believing them are no better than mine.


                  Likewise, the person who flips a coin or points to "that book" is not arriving at moral conclusions rationally,
                  Except we are coming to our conclusions rationally. See above. You just don't like our reasons.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    except we are not saying that. You keep reading that but it is not what we are saying.
                    It is what most of your complaints boil down to, Sparko. Sorry if you don't see it - there's not much I can do about that. I've tried.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING!!!!!!
                    Then that is what you should say. "Equally valid" is not the same thing. "Equally valid" means an equality. There is no way of measuring an equality. You would need another reference frame to do that, which would only be yet another subjective/relative reference frame.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    They are equally valid for each person subjectively.
                    No. Each person sees their own as valid. "Equally" is not a supportable claim. There is no way to make the comparison.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Neither is "better" or "worse" BECAUSE IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE.
                    "Better/worse" also cannot be assessed. As you note - the reference frames are relative. But we know that.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Dang Carp. Are you that blind as that you don't see what I have been saying over and over? That no logical argument for a moral stance is better than any other.
                    No logical argument is absolutely/objectively better than any other - with this I agree. But then we already know that - because the reference frames are subjective/relative. Ergo, the logical arguments can only be relatively/subjectively better. You're back to "green is not blue." Your stating the obvious as if you've actually said something. We already knew this. I've said this over and over again - and I agree with you. So what?

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Each person sees their own argument as "best" and therefore their own moral outlook as best. So basically their reason for believing a particular moral view is irrelevant to anyone other than themselves.
                    Yes - spot on.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    No argument is better than any other.
                    No argument is absolutely/objectively better. They ARE subjectively/relatively better. So you again have gone back to green is not blue. We KNOW they are not absolutely/objectively better. We know any assessment of "better" will be done relatively/subjectively. I've agreed to this, over and over, and over again. So what?

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Which means if someone wants to believe that flipping a coin is the best reason for their moral view, then that is just as "valid" as any other reason to them.
                    It may well seem valid to them. Indeed, it will likely BE valid to them. All that it tells ME is that a rational argument about a moral position is doomed to failure with them.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Yes it is. because whether someone uses math or flips a coin to determine their moral stance, the moral stance they come to is just a subjective view that is neither right nor wrong. Even if they "get it wrong" from your point of view, it doesn't matter because their morals are not your morals. So the reason doesn't matter.
                    Again, the first part is true. The second part not necessarily. It matters to the person to whom it matters. You have no basis for saying "it doesn't matter" unless you are again making an absolute/objective observation - it doesn't absolutely/objectively matter. With that I agree - because it is relative/subjective. But that means you just went back to "green is not blue." It can only matter relatively/subjectively. Again I ask...so what?

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    You keep SAYING that, but then you argue that seer and I are somehow inferior morally because we use a book to come to our morality. If you truly believed what you keep preaching, you would realize that our reasons for our moral stances only matter to ourselves, not to you so you not liking our methodology is like me telling you that you are wrong for liking chocolate.
                    Yes - I believe that anyone that subjugates their moral reasoning to a book is abandoning moral reasoning - and I consider that an inferior approach. It means there is no reasoned avenue for discussing moral conclusions. I would consider the person who picks a car "by their gut" to be making THAT decision in an inferior way as well. It doesn't mean they can't do it, and it doesn't mean they might not stumble unto a good car. I'm just not going to waste time discussing the merits of that car over another because it's a pointless exercise. They aren't using their minds.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    What do you mean "it might be?" If it is my moral stance that sex with pigs is immoral, then it is immoral for me. How can that be "might be?"
                    I have no control over your internal moral meter. You might think it is actually immoral, or you might simply be saying that to make a point. If you say it is immoral for you, I can only reflect "Sparko says this is immoral for him." Only Sparko knows the truth for certain. Hence, "it might be."

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    So if I flip a coin, to determine that sex with pigs is immoral, then the result is still the same. The REASON DOESN'T MATTER.
                    The reason doesn't absolutely/objectively matter. But then we already knew that...yada yada yada - more "green is not blue."

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    again you seem to be either misreading me or playing stupid. the frame of reference is compared to each individual. My reason for my moral view is valid to me. Your reason for your moral view is valid for you.
                    This is correct.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Your reasoning is not any better than mine. You claiming that you you "logic" is not any better than me flipping a coin.
                    This you have no basis for saying. My reasoning is subjectively better to me, and yours is subjectively inferior to me. There is no way to assess "absolutely/objectively better" without an absolute/objective framework, so you just went back to "green is not blue."

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Well as nearly 50 pages show, you are no more likely to change your mind on your views than I am. And saying I am basing my morals on God IS A REASON and is using REASON.

                    1. God created me
                    2. God knows how he designed me to act
                    3. God revealed his moral code to mankind in the bible
                    4. In order to live a live in harmony with God's purpose, I should follow his moral code.

                    See? completely reasonable and logical. You merely describing it as "following a book" doesn't mean it isn't based on logic or reason. It is just reasons you don't agree with. No different than if you and Mao come to different logical conclusions and moral outlooks on killing people.
                    So if I tell you that my moral code was arrived at as follows:

                    1. Tezcatlipoca created me
                    2. Tezcatlipoca knows how he designed me to act
                    3. Tezcatlipoca revealed his moral code to mankind in the ancient Aztec temple glyphs
                    4. In order to live a live in harmony with Tezcatlipoca's purpose, I should follow his moral code.

                    Would you agree that my moral framework was perfectly rational? Sparko - in order for an argument to be both sound AND valid, it must be in proper syllogistic form, and the premises must be true. You believe your premises to be true, but you cannot show a single one of them to be true without getting caught up in a world of circular argumentation. At the end, you will be "going from your gut," like the car buyer. I don't consider that rational.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    If you convinced us that God doesn't exist or that the bible got it wrong you could change our minds. How is that any different than if someone showed your reasons to be flawed?
                    Someone can show my reasoning to be flawed by examining the reasoning. But they can only show my conclusions to be flawed if they can show that AND show my premises to be untrue. My premises are largely subjective. I hold them in common with most humans - but they are nonetheless subjective. You are attempting to build your morality on objectively true premises that you cannot show to be actually true. "God created me" is a declaration of an objective reality. But you cannot show it to be true. The same is true of premises 2 and 3 in your list.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Oh I should THANK YOU for changing my argument and adding words?
                    I actually dislike it when people alter a statement to make it what they want it to be (i.e., FIFY). That was not my intent. I inserted the implied words you left out. You wrote this:

                    again, "changing someone's mind" has nothing to do with how correct someone's moral code is.


                    The statement is true if you meant:

                    again, "changing someone's mind" has nothing to do with how absolutely/objectively correct someone's moral code is.


                    but false if you meant:

                    again, "changing someone's mind" has nothing to do with how relatively/subjectively correct someone's moral code is.


                    You and Seer continually make indirect references to how "it doesn't matter," and "it is not better" and "it is equally valid." From a subjective/relative framework, these are nonsense statements. They are ONLY true from an absolute/objective framework. So...you've gone back to "green is not blue."

                    The heart of your argument, Sparko, is that relative/subjective morality provides no way to make absolute/objective statements about correctness, validity, truth, goodness, etc. I agree. it can't. We know that. That's what "relative/subjective" means. Again, I ask, "so what?"

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    My point is that you seem stuck on being able to change someone's minds as making your methodology somehow more important or better than mine based on a book.
                    No - I keep arguing that irrationally derived moral conclusions cannot be rationally discussed. I would think that is fairly obvious.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Except as you just inadvertently admitted by adding the word Objective to my sentence, it is YOU who keeps arguing for some sort of objective standard that is BETTER than mine (that being able to "change someone's mind" makes your moral methodology "better" than mine. But if morals are subjective then it DOESN'T, DOES IT? SO STOP ARGUING AS IF IT DOES.
                    I have never claimed that my moral conclusions are absolutely/objectively better than anyone else's If you think I have, I invite you to find and link the post. That would be inconsistent with my position. I DO think that rationally derived moral conclusions provide an avenue for discussion/debate that is missing for irrationally arrived at moral conclusions. In general, I believe ANY use of the mind to come to a reasoned decision is better than making decisions without the benefit of reason.

                    Ergo, in the quest for reaching alignment in a community, a rationally-arrived-at moral framework is better. That does not mean the moral conclusions themselves are better or worse in any absolute sense. The PROCESS is better because of the benefit it provides in engaging in moral discussions.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    See above, you are arguing for some objective standard that you think I should give a crap about.
                    In all honesty, Sparko, I really don't care if you give a crap about it or not. If you don't, then just go about your business and disconnect. If you engage, I'm going to respond. You can continue to whine about it (and me), or just focus on the argument at hand. Frankly, I think you waste far too much time on personal observations and nowhere near enough time on the merits of the argument - but if that's what floats your boat, go for it.

                    Yes - I believe a rational moral reasoning process is a better way to engage in moral reasoning that an irrational one. You guys are in the absurd position of defending the position "an irrational approach to moral reasoning is just as good." If you think so - go for it. I doubt you're going to get too many people to agree that being irrational is generally better than being rational.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    BETTER. If morals are subjective than your reasons for believing them are no better than mine.
                    My moral conclusions will not be absolutely/subjectively better. I've agreed to that many times. But then we know that - because my moral conclusions are subjective/relative. So you appear to be repeating the same mantra - apparently thinking you've said something. I agree - my moral conclusions cannot be shown to be objectively/absolutely better to anyone else's. They are subjectively/relatively better. So what?

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Except we are coming to our conclusions rationally. See above. You just don't like our reasons.
                    I don't find your approach to be "rational" Sparko because you base it on statements you claim are objectively true, without the ability to show they actually are. Since I believe they are actually NOT objectively true, the best you can say is your argument is sound (if you put it in syllogistic form), but not necessarily valid.
                    Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-18-2019, 04:20 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



                      So if I tell you that my moral code was arrived at as follows:

                      1. Tezcatlipoca created me
                      2. Tezcatlipoca knows how he designed me to act
                      3. Tezcatlipoca revealed his moral code to mankind in the ancient Aztec temple glyphs
                      4. In order to live a live in harmony with Tezcatlipoca's purpose, I should follow his moral code.

                      Would you agree that my moral framework was perfectly rational? Sparko - in order for an argument to be both sound AND valid, it must be in proper syllogistic form, and the premises must be true. You believe your premises to be true, but you cannot show a single one of them to be true without getting caught up in a world of circular argumentation. At the end, you will be "going from your gut," like the car buyer. I don't consider that rational.
                      You mean like your premise that is "true for you" Carp? Can you prove that human life has VALUE? If it is Sparko's belief that God created us, why is it on him to prove that true, and not on you to prove your premise? When I pushed you to create a syllogism defending your position you were all over the map, nor did your secondary premises logically follow your first premise.
                      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
                        You mean like your premise that is "true for you" Carp? Can you prove that human life has VALUE?
                        My valuing of human life is a subjective valuing. I have never said otherwise. I can assure you it is true, but I cannot prove it is true because it is internal to me. "God created me" is a statement about objective reality. If it cannot be shown to be true, and especially if I believe it to be false, it renders the conclusion, at best, indeterminate.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        If it is Sparko's belief that God created us, why is it on him to prove that true, and not on you to prove your premise?
                        He's making a statement about objective reality. I am not. If he wants his conclusion to be accepted as valid, he'll need to demonstrate the truth of his premises. If his premise was "I believe god created me," then I'd have to accept/reject that as true based on my impression of Sparko's honesty, because he cannot prove/disprove that he believes something. His conclusion can logically follow from that belief, showing me that his argument/conclusion is valid and reasoned for him (assuming it is a correctly structured line of reasoning). It won't be valid for me because his conclusion is ultimately conditioned not on his belief, but on whether or not a god actually created him, which I believe to be false.

                        Further, the belief itself (not to mention that this being has an intent we ought to follow, and that it is documented in the bible) is not grounded in anything Sparko reasons to (or you for that matter), still leaving no basis for a rational discussion about his moral outcomes.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        When I pushed you to create a syllogism defending your position you were all over the map, nor did your secondary premises logically follow your first premise.
                        The second premise doesn't "follow" from the first, in a syllogism, Seer. It is an independent premise related to the first.

                        P1) I would like to eat Pizza for lunch
                        P2) That restaurant serves pizza for lunch
                        C) I should eat at that restaurant.

                        P2 doesn't "follow" from P1, it is related to it and necessary to reach C. But that restaurant doesn't serve pizza because I want pizza for lunch.
                        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


                        • The second premise doesn't "follow" from the first, in a syllogism, Seer. It is an independent premise related to the first.

                          P1) I would like to eat Pizza for lunch
                          P2) That restaurant serves pizza for lunch
                          C) I should eat at that restaurant.

                          P2 doesn't "follow" from P1, it is related to it and necessary to reach C. But that restaurant doesn't serve pizza because I want pizza for lunch.
                          Somewhat - however, if there were no "I's" wanting pizza for lunch ...
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Somewhat - however, if there were no "I's" wanting pizza for lunch ...
                            The point is...the second premise is not logically dependent on the first (i.e., if the first is not true the second is not either)...it is simply logically related to it such that if the two premises are true the conclusion is likewise true.

                            P1) All dogs have a keener sense of smell than humans.
                            P2) Fido is a dog
                            C) Fido has a keener sense of smell than humans.

                            "Fido is a dog" does not logically depend on "all dogs have a keener sense of smell than humans."
                            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
                              My valuing of human life is a subjective valuing. I have never said otherwise. I can assure you it is true, but I cannot prove it is true because it is internal to me. "God created me" is a statement about objective reality. If it cannot be shown to be true, and especially if I believe it to be false, it renders the conclusion, at best, indeterminate.



                              He's making a statement about objective reality. I am not. If he wants his conclusion to be accepted as valid, he'll need to demonstrate the truth of his premises. If his premise was "I believe god created me," then I'd have to accept/reject that as true based on my impression of Sparko's honesty, because he cannot prove/disprove that he believes something. His conclusion can logically follow from that belief, showing me that his argument/conclusion is valid and reasoned for him (assuming it is a correctly structured line of reasoning). It won't be valid for me because his conclusion is ultimately conditioned not on his belief, but on whether or not a god actually created him, which I believe to be false.
                              So it is not a reality that you value life? And you are correct, all Sparko has to do is change his first premise...

                              Further, the belief itself (not to mention that this being has an intent we ought to follow, and that it is documented in the bible) is not grounded in anything Sparko reasons to (or you for that matter), still leaving no basis for a rational discussion about his moral outcomes.
                              In a sense you are correct, unlike you we can not be convince by a better logical argument that murdering dissidents may be moral.


                              The second premise doesn't "follow" from the first, in a syllogism, Seer. It is an independent premise related to the first.

                              P1) I would like to eat Pizza for lunch
                              P2) That restaurant serves pizza for lunch
                              C) I should eat at that restaurant.

                              P2 doesn't "follow" from P1, it is related to it and necessary to reach C. But that restaurant doesn't serve pizza because I want pizza for lunch.
                              The restaurant is an objective fact. I was referencing you going from valuing your own life A, to valuing other lives B. Those premises that follow will be subjective. Nothing logically requires you to go from A to B, except what you feel in your gut.
                              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
                                So it is not a reality that you value life?
                                Of course it is. A subjective reality.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                And you are correct, all Sparko has to do is change his first premise...
                                Changing his premises to "I believe" merely turns them into a statement of what he believes about objective reality. It doesn't make the objective reality true. If it's not - then his moral conclusions are built on a vapor.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                In a sense you are correct, unlike you we can not be convince by a better logical argument that murdering dissidents may be moral.
                                You cannot be convinced by ANY logical argument about ANYTHING in the moral sphere, Seer. I think I'll accept the possibility that someone might have a compelling argument for random killing for the integrity of knowing I am thinking through my moral conclusions. I am not all that afraid that someone might actually successfully make that argument. Someone might also make a compelling mathematical argument that the earth is at the center of the universe. After all - motion is all relative. I don't toss out preferring to reason through astronomy because I'm afraid of what someone might try to convince me about.

                                But if you have those fears, by all means stick to "the book." If you are that easily swayed, it's probably safer for all of us.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                The restaurant is an objective fact. I was referencing you going from valuing your own life A, to valuing other lives B. Those premises that follow will be subjective. Nothing logically requires you to go from A to B, except what you feel in your gut.
                                Not entirely. The golden rule is rooted in an inter-personal reality: what goes around tends to come around. How I treat others tends to be how I can expect them to treat me. If I want the people around me to treat me like "X," it is an unreasonable expectation to expect that will happen if I am treating the like "Y." It's the social contract. It occurs in all societies I have ever encountered or studied. It is the basis for the "golden rule" and all of other maxims of that type. None of them tells us what is or is not moral - they simply tell us to expect the same (or similar) treatment from others that we dole out ourselves.

                                It's not a "gut" feeling - it's a conclusion born out of observation - and study - and an understanding of history.
                                Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-18-2019, 07:46 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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                152 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                399 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
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X