Homophobic Trump...

[seer]

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"

He is simply appealing to the majority again. And just because one values his own life, liberty or happiness. Doesn't mean it logically follows that he values the life, liberty or happiness of others.

[Sparko]

He is simply appealing to the majority again.

Yep he is just following the herd.

PS: we are not following the herd. We are following the Shepherd.

[carpedm9587]

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.

First - you are speculating.
Second, I have no clue how you arrive at that conclusion.

Not to mention appealing to what you think "most humans value" sounds suspiciously like "following the herd"

No. There is a difference between these two things:

1) Observing that most people have characteristic X
2) Adopting characteristic X because "most people have it."

I do the former - not the latter. There is also a difference between:

1) Noting that "the herd" influences how we think and what we believe
2) Adopting a belief because "the herd" believes it.

I do the former. You and Seer do the latter, with respect to morality. Your "herd," however, is not "most people." It is specifically the few dozen authors of the books of the Christian bible - and the individuals you turn to to interpret those books for you (since I presume you do not speak/read either Classical Hebrew or ancient Aramiac) as well as the horde of unknown copyists (since none of the original writings have survived and all you have is the copies these people - presumably men - produced). This is the basis for your subjectively/relatively adopted moral framework, which you then claim absolute/objective inerrancy for. Why? Because you have a god who can magically push through ALL of these obstacles of understanding original intent - and produce a perfect and inerrant outcome.

Magical thinking at its finest, my friend.

[carpedm9587]

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.

Repeating a lie continuously doesn't make it true. And I think this will be the last time I point this out. Going forward, I'll just exclude the lies from my responses.

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.

First - any speculation on your part about what I "would do" in situation X is pure speculation you cannot show to be true. You appear to be making an assumption, stating it as fact, and then using it to hold an existing position. All the while, you are ironically accusing me of basing my morality on a "self serving selection of premises." Seer, you should stick to arguments rooted in things you can show to be true. So far, you have not done this.

I just proved it with your arbitrary choice of genome. Why not use gender?

First, I'm not going to go back to the genome discussion. It is a reasoned argument and has no place with someone who does not use reason to arrive at moral conclusions. As I have noted multiple times, my original attempt to make this point was in error for that reason.

Second, please read carefully what you have written. What this statement tells me is that you never even understood the original argument. Gender, Seer, springs from genome. That was the entire point. I DID use gender - XX codes for female - XY codes for male.

Why do you and the Maoist have different premises?

Because different people can value differently - and usually do to one degree or another. No two people are exactly the same. Just as no two people like the same food, like the same vacation spots, like the same art, or any of the other things we value subjectively. And we generally "choose according to what we like." We don't "choose to like." You cannot choose to like carrots if you hate carrots. You can choose to eat them. If you eat them often enough, what you like may change. But you can not sit down and say "I will like broccoli today.

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.

The rest of this is simply more repetition of the same unprovable lie you've been spouting for multiple posts now, Seer. I trust the lurking reader to see it for what it is and have no need to try to "prove you wrong." You and I both know I cannot - and nor can you prove yourself to be right. I suspect (but cannot prove either) that this is why you're using this tactic. Claim away if you wish. It doesn't make one ounce of this "true."

[carpedm9587]

He is simply appealing to the majority again. And just because one values his own life, liberty or happiness. Doesn't mean it logically follows that he values the life, liberty or happiness of others.

No - see my response to Sparko.

I spend more time correcting you two people's misinterpretations (if I'm being kind) and/or blatant misrepresentations (if I'm being less than charitable) of the things I say than actually putting forward and exploring arguments with the two of you.

I have to admit that it's getting pretty tedious.

[carpedm9587]

Yep he is just following the herd.

PS: we are not following the herd. We are following the Shepherd.

See my previous response.

And you ARE demonstrably and provably "following the herd." As you yourself have pointed out, "what's in the bible" is the basis for your morality. What's is in the bible was put there by a small group of a few dozen men who lived 2000-3500 years ago. Since you follow what they wrote as your basis, it is an objective (and admitted) truth that you are "following the herd," where your herd is this small group of men you primarily cannot identify. This is not a reality you can avoid, Sparko. Indeed, you have acknowledged it.

Now - you have also expressed that you believe these men were inspired by god to write these things - and this group of books is the inerrant word of this god, but that view is held by many religious people about their "sacred texts," and is not even universally held about this book by all Christians. And you cannot even show this to be true. If asked how you know this to be true, I am fairly sure you will resort to the book itself and the claims it makes - producing a completely circular argument.

1) Why to you follow/believe what is in the book?
2) Because it is the inerrant word of god
3) How do you know it is the inerrant word of god?
4) Because it's in the book
5) Return to 1)

[seer]

First, I'm not going to go back to the genome discussion. It is a reasoned argument and has no place with someone who does not use reason to arrive at moral conclusions. As I have noted multiple times, my original attempt to make this point was in error for that reason.

Second, please read carefully what you have written. What this statement tells me is that you never even understood the original argument. Gender, Seer, springs from genome. That was the entire point. I DID use gender - XX codes for female - XY codes for male.

No, that is why you brought in the interracial thing. You were not making a distinction between male and female, it was not part of your premise. Once you lose the genome premise your argument fails. Every argument you have made has been thus...

Because different people can value differently - and usually do to one degree or another. No two people are exactly the same. Just as no two people like the same food, like the same vacation spots, like the same art, or any of the other things we value subjectively. And we generally "choose according to what we like." We don't "choose to like." You cannot choose to like carrots if you hate carrots. You can choose to eat them. If you eat them often enough, what you like may change. But you can not sit down and say "I will like broccoli today.

Correct, you are self-selecting your premises to argue to your desired end, and if you are not self-selecting you are just following your instinctive moral sense. The upshot, being, as I said, we learn nothing about morality by your reasoning, any more than we lean anything moral by the reasoning of the Maoist. We just lean what you prefer. And why a relativist like you would dispute this is beyond me.

[Sparko]

First - you are speculating.
Second, I have no clue how you arrive at that conclusion.

really? If most people actually did value liberty and freedom and life, why would they enslave others and make it an institution? Or mass murder them? History proves your claim to be false.

No. There is a difference between these two things:

1) Observing that most people have characteristic X
2) Adopting characteristic X because "most people have it."

I do the former - not the latter. There is also a difference between:

1) Noting that "the herd" influences how we think and what we believe
2) Adopting a belief because "the herd" believes it.

I do the former. You and Seer do the latter, with respect to morality. Your "herd," however, is not "most people." It is specifically the few dozen authors of the books of the Christian bible - and the individuals you turn to to interpret those books for you (since I presume you do not speak/read either Classical Hebrew or ancient Aramiac) as well as the horde of unknown copyists (since none of the original writings have survived and all you have is the copies these people - presumably men - produced). This is the basis for your subjectively/relatively adopted moral framework, which you then claim absolute/objective inerrancy for. Why? Because you have a god who can magically push through ALL of these obstacles of understanding original intent - and produce a perfect and inerrant outcome.

Magical thinking at its finest, my friend.

No Carp, you just used "most people's values" to justify your own moral values. You used "the herd" to justify your morals. Sorry bud, but you did.

And our "herd" is not people at all. It is God. The Shepherd.


And why would following the moral teachings of wise men even be wrong in your eyes? Do you think people who follow the teachings of someone like Ghandi to be inferior to you? Did you come up with all of your morals all on your own? Or were you taught them by others? Did your parents teach you right from wrong? Or did you have to figure it out all on your own? Not to mention you seem to want others to follow YOUR moral teachings. You just want to be the leader.

Your positions are all over the place and completely contradictory Carp. And you don't even see it. That's kind of sad.

[carpedm9587]

No, that is why you brought in the interracial thing. You were not making a distinction between male and female, it was not part of your premise. Once you lose the genome premise your argument fails. Every argument you have made has been thus...

Wow, Seer. You really need to go back and learn a bit about genetics. If you can make this statement, then I can see why you didn't follow the argument. Sorry. I made the mistake of assuming you understood genetics. Anyway - it's a moot point. As I noted, the argument is based on reason. Your morality is not - so this line of argument is doomed to fail with you. Discussing it is pointless.

The upshot, being, as I said, we learn nothing about morality by your reasoning, any more than we lean anything moral by the reasoning of the Maoist. We just lean what you prefer. And why a relativist like you would dispute this is beyond me

This is a prime example of the "green is not blue" line or argumentation you and Sparko use consistently. The central theme here is, for the moral relativist/subjectivist, a discussion about morality is nothing more than a discussion about "preferences." I agree. I have always agreed. Moral positions are statements of individual moral preference. I have never said otherwise. I 100% agree with you. I have never disputed this or disagreed with it.

This is then positioned as somehow BAD. Why? Because it means the moral relativist/subjectivist cannot show something to be absolutely/objectively right or wrong. But you tend to use words like "actually" or "really" or "truely" instead of absolutely/objectively wrong. Ergo, moral relativism/subjectivism is bad/untrue because it is not absolute/objective. So X is not good because it's not Y.

And you two seem to think this is actually an argument. So I agree that X is not Y (moral relativism/subjectivism is not moral absolutism/objectivism). I have never disagreed with this. And this is a simple definition of the terms that is self-evidently true (like green is not blue). But, as with the statement "green is not blue" - it does not show that moral relativism/subjectivism is bad or untrue. It simply repeats, for the bazillionth time, that it's not absolute/objective - after which you assert (without foundation) that X not being Y makes X bad.

And I suspect you STILL won't see your problem.

[seer]

1) Observing that most people have characteristic X
2) Adopting characteristic X because "most people have it."

I do the former - not the latter. There is also a difference between:

1) Noting that "the herd" influences how we think and what we believe
2) Adopting a belief because "the herd" believes it.

I do the former. You and Seer do the latter, with respect to morality. Your "herd," however, is not "most people." It is specifically the few dozen authors of the books of the Christian bible - and the individuals you turn to to interpret those books for you (since I presume you do not speak/read either Classical Hebrew or ancient Aramiac) as well as the horde of unknown copyists (since none of the original writings have survived and all you have is the copies these people - presumably men - produced). This is the basis for your subjectively/relatively adopted moral framework, which you then claim absolute/objective inerrancy for. Why? Because you have a god who can magically push through ALL of these obstacles of understanding original intent - and produce a perfect and inerrant outcome.

Magical thinking at its finest, my friend.

Sheesh Carp, are you just dense? What is wrong in your relative world in adopting what the herd believes? Does your moral reasoning tell us what is moral or not-how? Any more than what the herd believes or the Maoist?

[seer]

Wow, Seer. You really need to go back and learn a bit about genetics. If you can make this statement, then I can see why you didn't follow the argument. Sorry. I made the mistake of assuming you understood genetics. Anyway - it's a moot point. As I noted, the argument is based on reason. Your morality is not - so this line of argument is doomed to fail with you. Discussing it is pointless.

I understand genetics, your whole argument revolved around not be able to ask about genetic make up. Why not? Who says? That was your arbitrary restriction.

This is a prime example of the "green is not blue" line or argumentation you and Sparko use consistently. The central theme here is a) for the moral relativist/subjectivist, a discussion about morality is nothing more than a discussion about "preferences." I agree. I have always agreed. Moral positions are statements of individual moral preference. I have never said otherwise. I 100% agree with you. I have never disputed this or disagreed with it.

This is then positioned as somehow BAD. Why? Because it means the moral relativist/subjectivist cannot show something to be absolutely/objectively right or wrong. But you tend to use words like "actually" or "really" or "truely" instead of absolutely/objectively wrong. Ergo, moral relativism/subjectivism is bad/untrue because it is not absolute/objective. So X is not good because it's not Y.

And you two seem to think this is actually an argument. So a) I agree that X is not Y (moral relativism/subjectivism is not moral absolutism/objectivism). I have never disagreed with this. And this is a simple definition of the terms that is self-evidently true (like green is not blue). But, as with the statement "green is not blue" - it does not show that moral relativism/subjectivism is bad or untrue. It simply repeats, for the bazillionth time, that it's not absolute/objective - after which you assert (without foundation) that X not being Y makes X bad.

And I suspect you STILL won't see your problem.

So you agree that all your moral reasoning, only, in the end, tells us about your preferences.

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh Carp, are you just dense?

What is wrong in your relative world in adopting what the herd believes?

So, as best I can tell, you are focused on "the outcome." You argument has always been "the outcome is relative, so how choose is irrelevant since it cannot be shown to be better or worse either way." First - this is yet another version of your green is not blue argumentation - so it's not an argument. Second, it is not the basis for my statement that "following the herd is not as objectively good." My observation is not based on outcomes - it is based on process and what it does and does not enable.

Our moral frameworks do not just affect us - they affect the people around us as well. They are not just personal/subjective, they are interpersonal and inter-subjective. Your moral position on many issues can (and often does) impact the lives of others. For this reason, we seek to influence one another's moral positions. "Follow the herd" eliminates any basis for this dialogue/discussion. It strips moral conclusions of a thought process, and enslaves it to "whatever the herd thinks." Ergo, it dooms the exchange between this person and others to ALWAYS devolve to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

Second, I take it as an objective truth that making decisions based on rational thought is better than making them randomly or semi-randomly. We live this in the vast majority of our lives. We don't just flip a coin to make decisions - even subjective ones. We reason from premises to conclusions. It prevents our conclusions from simply being random. Could I randomly choose the best car? Sure. Am I more likely to get "the best car" if I reason through the decision? I think that's pretty self-evident, and can probably even be shown to be true. You and Sparko are in the odd position of arguing against the use of reason to make a decision - a methodology you apparently advocate for arriving at moral conclusions, but I am pretty sure you don't use that approach anywhere else in your life. Again...consistency.

It is a very odd position for anyone to take. I don't know how it can even be rationally defended. Indeed, attempting to rationally defend it would seem to be self-refuting. That you find yourself defending this stance is a testament, to me, to just how desperately you and Sparko need to hold on to your "follow the herd" model. Seer- you are perfectly free to cling to your follow the herd model. Morality is subjective - and your basis is your basis. What you make your basis only informs me as to what is and is not a waste of time discussing with you. Since you do not use reason to arrive at moral conclusions - making rational arguments to you is pointless (hence the genome discussion was a pointless one from the get go). Had I thought this through before, I would never have engaged in that discussion. It had zero chance of convincing you of anything because it completely ignored your moral basis: follow the herd.

Does your moral reasoning tell us what is moral or not-how? Any more than what the herd believes or the Maoist?

This is more "green is not blue" argumentation/questioning. I've responded multiple times, so I'll let my previous posts stand.

[carpedm9587]

I understand genetics, your whole argument revolved around not be able to ask about genetic make up.

Seer - someone who can post "why did you focus on genetics instead of gender," and "how is that related to race" does not understand the argument I put forward, and is not demonstrating a knowledge of genetics. I don't know what you understand about genetics, but it is fairly clear to me that both race and gender are genetically based. You don't seem to understand that. At least, your posts do not reflect that understanding.

As a teacher by profession, people's questions in the classroom often give me a sense of their knowledge. When someone asks, "Which end of the bird do you put dishes into so as to wash them?" I know immediately that they don't know what a bird is, and don't understand the distinction between a bird and a dishwasher. When someone asks, "why did you use the genome instead of gender," when my entire argument emphasized XY vs XX genetic coding is telling me that there are some problems with their understanding of genetics.

Why not? Who says? That was your arbitrary restriction.

The argument was about consistency of position. It was based on reason, Seer, so it's not going to be relevant to you (in the moral sphere). It was based on the assumption that you would reject a genetically-based moral conclusion in Situation A (race-based), but embrace it in Situation B (gender-based), which is an inconsistent position. Most people, faced with inconsistency, look at what causes the inconsistency and seek to become consistent. That was the basis for the argument. But such an argument will only have meaning to someone who uses reason to come to moral conclusions. If moral conclusions are based on "what is in the book," consistency is irrelevant - science is irrelevant - logic is irrelevant. In making the argument, I ignored your basis, so the argument was doomed to failure.

Note, Seer - I am not saying that you are abandoning reason altogether. You have simply abandoned it in the moral sphere. Given the importance of morality in all of our lives, that is an odd choice, to me.

So you agree that all your moral reasoning, only, in the end, tells us about your preferences.

I have never said anything other than that, Seer. I have asked many times, "so what." Your only response is to repeat that moral relativism/subjectivsm cannot make absolute/objective claims. I again agree...and say "so what?" And round and round you go.

Seer - you have never had an argument for what is wrong with moral relativism/subjectivism. Your ONLY "argument" is that it is not absolute/objective. I suspect we both know that (but only you know what you actually know). I know we both agree on that point (i.e., they are not the same). Unfortunately, for you, it's not an argument. It's like saying "green is bad because it's not blue." It's a non-argument. Green is not blue. this is a fact. We all agree about this fact. Claiming it is bad because it's not blue is not an argument. It basically translates to "I like blue things, so green is bad." I know you like the illusion that you subscribe to an absolute/objective moral framework which gives you a sense of "moral certainty." I understand that. However, your "like" for this illusion does not make the reality "bad," no matter how many times you assert it.

[carpedm9587]

really?

Yes.

If most people actually did value liberty and freedom and life, why would they enslave others and make it an institution? Or mass murder them? History proves your claim to be false.

Take all of the people involved in all of the atrocities in history - divide by the total number of people who have lived. The resulting number will be a small fraction. Most people spend their lives doing basic good things - helping their neighbors - passing on their values to their children - and so forth. Your argument ignores that reality.

No Carp, you just used "most people's values" to justify your own moral values. You used "the herd" to justify your morals. Sorry bud, but you did.

And every assertion that this is what I did is irrelevant. I didn't. My morality is not based on "what the herd thinks" and is not justified by "what the herd thinks." It never has been. It never will be, despite any misrepresentation on your part.

And our "herd" is not people at all. It is God. The Shepherd.

I realize you are under that illusion. What we can show is that the bible was written by a small group of men, most of whom we don't know. What we can show is that no original copies exist, so what we have is the output of unknown copyists in multiple fragments. What we can show is that the original writings were in ancient Aramiac and ancient Hebrew, so the versions we have have also been through the hands of multiple translators - and the outputs of these translators are not 100% aligned (which is normal for translations) and subject to the subjective selection of particular words or phrases when two languages do not 100% align (which they never do). This is what we can show. Feel free to refute any of this. If history repeats itself, you will simply cut this part out of your response, ignore it, and/or misrepresent it.

Your claim is about your belief - which you cannot rationally defend - as I have shown multiple times.

And why would following the moral teachings of wise men even be wrong in your eyes?

I have said nothing about whether they are right or wrong. I have said that I do not find it a rational process to accept something as "right" or "wrong" for no other reason than "X said it."

Do you think people who follow the teachings of someone like Ghandi to be inferior to you?

I think anyone who is following the teachings of Ghandi for no other reason than "Ghandi said it" is using a poor decision process and cannot rationally defend their views. They will simply swallow, indiscriminately, whatever Ghandi said. It's a variation on the authoritative model of morality - with a new "authority" introduced.

Did you come up with all of your morals all on your own?

No.

Or were you taught them by others?

As with most people, my moral principles were originally aligned with my elders - as a child - when I could not reason effectively or at all.

Did your parents teach you right from wrong?

My parents taught me what they thought was right versus wrong.

Or did you have to figure it out all on your own?

As I matured, I did indeed "figure them out." Not "all on my own" mind you. But I did examine (and am still examining) moral precepts I was taught to see if they make sense. My dad was like you concerning homosexuality. As a matured and began to reason, I realized his position made no rational sense and was inconsistent with other views I held, so I rejected it. I did NOT find his moral stance on "random killing" to be irrational - so I still have it. My moral framework continues to evolve as I discuss/debate moral positions with others who reason to their moral conclusions.

Not to mention you seem to want others to follow YOUR moral teachings. You just want to be the leader.

You do have a tendency of telling other people what they like and don't like - want and don't want. You are wrong more often than you are right. As with all moralists, including yourself, I see the world through the lens of my moral framework. I believe the world would be a better place is everyone followed those moral precepts, and I seek to influence them to do so. You do the same thing - and have made similar arguments. The only difference is you have enslaved your moral conclusions to your interpretation of the output of those authors/copyists/translators and want everyone else to do the same thing. You have the illusion that this framework is "absolute/objective" and everyone HAS to adhere to it. Other than illusion on your part (which you cannot show to be true), we function identically, AFAICT. You have even outright stated that the world would be better if everyone followed the so-called "Christian precepts" (as if there was only one of those!).

Your positions are all over the place and completely contradictory Carp. And you don't even see it. That's kind of sad.

So far, Sparko - the only inconsistencies you have articulated are based on your misunderstanding and/or misrepresentations of my posts. You are free to continue to do that, and to assert that I am "all over the place" and "inconsistent." It doesn't make it true. When/if you actually show an inconsistency, I'll be happy to address it and, if I cannot, adjust my views accordingly. But I'm not going to adjust my views because you can't keep them straight or reflect them accurately, and manufacture all sorts of "inconsistencies" as a consequence.

[seer]

Seer - someone who can post "why did you focus on genetics instead of gender," and "how is that related to race" does not understand the argument I put forward, and is not demonstrating a knowledge of genetics. I don't know what you understand about genetics, but it is fairly clear to me that both race and gender are genetically based. You don't seem to understand that. At least, your posts do not reflect that understanding.

As a teacher by profession, people's questions in the classroom often give me a sense of their knowledge. When someone asks, "Which end of the bird do you put dishes into so as to wash them?" I know immediately that they don't know what a bird is, and don't understand the distinction between a bird and a dishwasher. When someone asks, "why did you use the genome instead of gender," when my entire argument emphasized XY vs XX genetic coding is telling me that there are some problems with their understanding of genetics.

Then why did you say that I can not ask about genetics? That was an arbitrary condition. And get off your high house, you are not that bright.

The argument was about consistency of position. It was based on reason, Seer, so it's not going to be relevant to you (in the moral sphere). It was based on the assumption that you would reject a genetically-based moral conclusion in Situation A (race-based), but embrace it in Situation B (gender-based), which is an inconsistent position. Most people, faced with inconsistency, look at what causes the inconsistency and seek to become consistent. That was the basis for the argument. But such an argument will only have meaning to someone who uses reason to come to moral conclusions. If moral conclusions are based on "what is in the book," consistency is irrelevant - science is irrelevant - logic is irrelevant. In making the argument, I ignored your basis, so the argument was doomed to failure.

It is not inconsistent if MY criterion is gender alone. Why should I accept your criterion? Why can't my criterion be gender alone? What law of logic have I violated?

Note, Seer - I am not saying that you are abandoning reason altogether. You have simply abandoned it in the moral sphere. Given the importance of morality in all of our lives, that is an odd choice, to me.

I have never said anything other than that, Seer. I have asked many times, "so what." Your only response is to repeat that moral relativism/subjectivsm cannot make absolute/objective claims. I again agree...and say "so what?" And round and round you go.

Seer - you have never had an argument for what is wrong with moral relativism/subjectivism. Your ONLY "argument" is that it is not absolute/objective. I suspect we both know that (but only you know what you actually know). I know we both agree on that point (i.e., they are not the same). Unfortunately, for you, it's not an argument. It's like saying "green is bad because it's not blue." It's a non-argument. Green is not blue. this is a fact. We all agree about this fact. Claiming it is bad because it's not blue is not an argument. It basically translates to "I like blue things, so green is bad." I know you like the illusion that you subscribe to an absolute/objective moral framework which gives you a sense of "moral certainty." I understand that. However, your "like" for this illusion does not make the reality "bad," no matter how many times you assert it.

That is not an answers Carp. You said I abandoned reason in the moral sphere, yet you admit that your moral reasoning tells us nothing about what is moral or not (apart from what it tells us about what you prefer). There is no rational reason to believe that moral reasoning leads to answering moral questions any better than what the herd or book comes up with.