Page 19 of 30 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 293

Thread: Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

  1. #181
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,710
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1108
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    It's curious to me that you find the idea of reasonable certainty and conviction of belief so distasteful.
    I don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    My beliefs are open to any question you care to ask, but if I strike you as close minded or not easily swayed then perhaps it's because you're not asking very good questions.
    Or because you are closed to alternate ideas, and do an "MM dismount" as soon as you are confronted by logic you cannot refute....


    ETA: BTW - Happy Father's Day (at least I think you mentioned having kids)
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-16-2019 at 07:30 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

  2. #182
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,710
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1108
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Really? You put Max and Adrift in the top tier of posters on this site, which they are, then attach yourself to that group.
    My point was actually that I consider Adrift better at it than I. Perhaps you missed that.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I doubt that most of us who debate with you see you in that top tier.
    Of that I have no doubt. Yet I think you will be hard to put find that I regularly go after the person, rather than the argument, or seek to belittle. Indeed, I'd be willing to bet that most of Adrift's examples came from places where I had been on the receiving end of multiple such emojis, and finally returned in kind - not something I am proud of, to be sure, and something I pretty much always acknowledge and apologize for when I am back in my "right mind" (so to speak).

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    In any case that isn't something a man should claim for himself. It smacks of pride and hubris.
    Knowing one's strengths and weaknesses is not pride OR hubris, it's simply self-awareness. I am a person who prefers civil discourse about the issues, and prefers to look at the facts and explore the arguments. I don't usually spend my time accusing others of being hypocrites or attacking their person.* That's not to say I haven't. As I said to Adrift, I can slide into that space when I am tired or stressed, and should know better than to post at those times. That's primarily why I think he's better at it than I. I can also be defensive when I think I'm being misrepresented, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see I'm wordy.

    But I'm working on those things!



    *ETA: I can hear the response now: "what about the claims of bigotry?" Despite all of the claims of my thinking or saying "X is a bigot," I think you will find my statements have always been about positions that are or are not an example of bigotry. A person can lie without being defined as a chronic liar. Trump is a chronic liar. OBP is not, though I think he slipped into lying when he made his recent post. CP and you and others who hold anti-gay positions are holding a view I find to be a bigoted position. I don't think you are defined by bigotry or chronically bigots in all aspects of your lives. In fact, I think you and CP are generally good men, who hold a few positions I find morally unacceptable. I would daresay you have the same view of me, at least about the "morally unacceptable" part.

    ETAA: I guess I still need work on that wordy part...

    ETAAA: Oh yeah - happy Father's Day!
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-16-2019 at 07:27 AM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

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

  3. #183
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    57,157
    Amen (Given)
    12406
    Amen (Received)
    26575
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    My point was actually that I consider Adrift better at it than I.
    I agree!
    DuckDuckGo - Privacy Simplified

  4. #184
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,710
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1108
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I agree!
    See - I knew we'd agree on something!


    Happy Father's Day, CP
    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

  5. #185
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    57,157
    Amen (Given)
    12406
    Amen (Received)
    26575
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    See - I knew we'd agree on something!


    Happy Father's Day, CP
    Same to ya.
    DuckDuckGo - Privacy Simplified

  6. #186
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,316
    Amen (Given)
    5882
    Amen (Received)
    6708
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Or because you are closed to alternate ideas, and do an "MM dismount" as soon as you are confronted by logic you cannot refute....
    This thread alone puts the lie to that assertion.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  7. #187
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,710
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1108
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    This thread alone puts the lie to that assertion.
    Oh I think not. Go back and reread carefully, MM. If this is the thread I am remembering it follows a familiar pattern:

    ...back and forth...
    ...carpe points out something MM cannot logically refute...
    ...MM blames carpe's posting style and does a dismount...
    ...carpe calls him on it...
    ...MM returns to repost without addressing the logical problem...
    ...carpe repeats the concept MM cannot refute...
    ...MM declares someone else has "said it all" and does another dismount...

    Perhaps it was not this thread, but it was one of the recent ones you and I were engaged in. MM, you have honed a skill taught in the JPH school of debate/discussion: take whatever the person is saying and turn it back on them. The person saying "that is bigotry" becomes the bigot. The person saying "that is not a rational argument becomes "irrational." The person pointing out the childishness of calling names and trying to humiliate others is the humiliator. It's a powerful strategy - and leaves no one able to call out inappropriate behavior, because the very act of calling it out becomes inappropriate behavior. It is your nom-de-plume. It is the go-to tactic you, and Sparko, and Pix, and several others have adopted.

    As I write this, I find myself feeling more sad than anything else. This has become the model for discourse throughout our country. I wonder if democracy, and just plain old human dignity, can survive it.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

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

  8. #188
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,463
    Amen (Given)
    1078
    Amen (Received)
    1636
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Have you ever noticed, Max, that if we ever had a discussion about "risks to my life," few of us would even think to include "meteor strike" on that list? The possibility is there. It is a natural consequence of how the laws of the universe function that any one of us could be killed by such a thing at any moment. But it is not in our thoughts because the possibility is so remote as to be essentially non-existent. No human being in history is known to have been killed by being struck by a meteor.

    But this is essentially what the person arguing for subjective morality almost always ends up heading for. The incidence of someone valuing "not seeing chewed food" above "life" is almost non-existent; but out it comes, as if it were a perfectly common appearance.

    If you encounter a person who values this way, and so sees it to be perfectly acceptable to kill someone over it, you hauling out your bible and pointing to the absence of such a moral code there will do pretty much nothing to convince them either. Your appeal to a moral code they have not adopted will not help you one whit. You will end up doing the same thing I have to do: ignore (probably not), isolate/separate, or contend.

    That is what any two people will end up doing when they do not agree on a moral precept.



    So let me insert the words that you, like Seer, omit in your sentence. What you are actually saying is, "That imaginary world is no less objectively moral than the present one." To that I say, "correct, it's not." Because morality is subjective, there is no objective standard, so there is no way to make the objective statement, "that world is more/less moral than this one." You have to specify the moral framework from which the assessment is being made - then you can make the assessment. And you are back to "subjective moralism is worse because it's not objective." You can make the claim if you wish - but you will have to do more than assert it to convince. From what I can see, all you are doing is reminding us that subjective is not equal to objective, and then claiming that is a basis for declaring it worse.



    I am not "offended" in the least, Max. I wish it were possible to convey how useless the line of argumentation is, but my experience is that the moralist who subscribes to morality as objectively based is somehow not wired to see that. I have never found a way to successfully convey the point.



    You and me both. I have sometimes been tempted to pick up my phone and camera app and just let them watch themselves...



    Semi-correct. The nature of morality is rooted in sorting actions based on what we value. So if I encounter someone with a differing moral code, two things are possible:

    1) We value differently so we then reason to differing moral codes.
    2) We value the same but one of us has made an error of reasoning and arrived at differing moral codes

    The first is a challenge. To align the moral codes requires us to convince the other person to value differently. My discussion with Seer (and others) about homosexuality is a good case in point, and has taught me the futility of approaching the argument as I have approached it.

    The second is easier. If we value similarly and one of us has made a rational error in reasoning to a moral position, then it should be possible to uncover the error and align the positions.

    If neither can be done, then we are back to ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend (as we always have been).



    I am another human on this planet doing what all of the other humans on this planet do every day. When moral frameworks do not align and cannot be aligned - we ignore the issue if we consider it fairly trivial. We isolate/separate for more serious things. We contend for the most serious issues.

    Example: You believe it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage, I believe it is morally neutral. The difference does not impact our day-to-day lives and I can still join you for a beer (well, a seltzer - I stopped drinking some time ago).

    Example: You believe it is immoral to be in a same-sex marriage, I believe it is perfectly moral. If I have friends in that marriage, I will probably not be including you on any invitations to gathering in my home when same-sex couples are present. If you insist on being vocal about it, I probably will cease to include you in my circle of friends.

    Example: You believe it is perfectly moral to take anything that is in anyone's possession because all things should be held communally and god forbids the concept of "personal possessions." I will again isolate you from my circle of friends, but if you insist on acting on your beliefs and taking my things, I will eventually invoke law enforcement and seek to have you punished and/or incarcerated. If we were not in a society, but rather were two individuals "out in the woods" with this difference, I probably would have to resort to booby-trapping my land and letting you know there are lethal booby traps to prevent you taking my possessions.



    From my perspective, Max, you are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is pointing to the moral frameworks documented by other men and claiming them to be "the objective standard." Well - they are objective to you in that they were the moral frameworks of other people, but they are not "the objective standard." They are just someone else's moral framework set down on paper (or papyrus, as it may be). And you have adopted that particular framework because of how you value.

    There is no moral framework anyone can point to that was not subjectively conceived by the mind of a sentient being and documented by the hand of a sentient being. There is no basis for thinking any of these is "objectively real" any more than there is a basis for believing there is an objective standard for laws.

    This is an error Seer continually makes: he tries to align moral principles with logical and mathematical ones. But moral principles have little in common with logical and mathematical principles, so his argument reduces to "moral principles are like logical principles, so if logical principles are objectively real/true, then moral principles are as well." That's like me saying, "people are like cars, so if cars have four tires, people have four tires." If we are going to make an analogy, the two things we are equating need to have at least a few things in common.

    Moral principles are like legal principles. Both govern actions. Both show variation from community to community. Both show enormous similarity from community to community. No one argues that "legal principles" are rooted in an "objective standard," or calls laws "meaningless" because two states, countries, nations might have different legal structures. So I have to wonder why they make this claim for moral principles.



    I have my moments. One thing that TWeb is forcing me to face is my tendency to become defensive when someone says something about me that is untrue or reflects badly on me. It gives me a venue to exercise letting people say/think what they will about me, and moving on without having to convince them I'm not X and am Y instead. It is a skill I am not good at. I know, cognitively, that what someone says about me does not alter who and what I am. But my self-defense mechanism kicks in far more frequently than I like. But I am getting a LOT of practice here!

    And I am slowly getting better at it. Maybe, someday, I'll achieve perfection!

    ETA: Oh yeah - and I'm wordy. That one DOESN'T seem to be improving...


    I think you're missing the point of the issue I've raised. It's NOT an argument for objective morality. And I know what you do when moral values conflict, I'm asking what is the justification for doing that consistent with your worldview?

    Give subjective morality, all values are equally valid, and ontologically in the same class. They are statements about subjective, personal beliefs. How you want the world to be, how you think people should behave. Thus there is no difference between value X that you hold, and value Y that someone else holds, no matter what they are, except that you value X and not Y. There is nothing intrinsic about the value itself that makes it more or less valid. And there is nothing about the rationale or process anyone has or uses in deciding on that value that makes one value more valid than any other.

    Therefore, any particular value can be held by someone, and it is valid and moral for them, no matter what it is. The close-your-mouth-when-eating society is just as justified in using your "ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend" process as you are for your values. Even to the point of executing nonconformists.


    Therefore you have no basis except self interest to persuade, isolate, coerce or contend with someone who has a different and conflicting value to yours. What makes your value right and theirs wrong? Nothing.

    Yet you insist that you have the right to impose your moral values on someone who doesn't hold them, using the full force of the state if need be. That right can't be because your values are in any way better than theirs, because there is no better moral value in your worldview. That right can't be because you know better than they what is best for them, since you are in no way well-enough informed about them, or wise enough to choose for them. If it is because everyone has the right to impose their moral values on others, then you have to accept that whoever is the most willing and able to do that decides morality for the bulk of people. Rule of the violent.

    It can't be for any objective reason such as 'people have intrinsic value' or 'everyone has the right to their moral values' since those things are objective moral values, and thus denied by your worldview.


    Subjective morality can't ground a basis for changing, challenging, or restricting the moral behaviour of others except to say that 'I want them to do what I like'.





    BTW - Do you believe that the physical world is all that exists? If so, then Rosenberg's views are the necessary logical outcome of that.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  9. Amen RumTumTugger, Adrift, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  10. #189
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,710
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1108
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    I think you're missing the point of the issue I've raised. It's NOT an argument for objective morality. And I know what you do when moral values conflict, I'm asking what is the justification for doing that consistent with your worldview?
    The same justification there is for having a moral framework to begin with: to distinguish "ought" action from "ought not" action, which is to protect/enhance/nurture that which we value.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Give subjective morality, all values are equally valid, and ontologically in the same class. They are statements about subjective, personal beliefs. How you want the world to be, how you think people should behave. Thus there is no difference between value X that you hold, and value Y that someone else holds, no matter what they are, except that you value X and not Y. There is nothing intrinsic about the value itself that makes it more or less valid. And there is nothing about the rationale or process anyone has or uses in deciding on that value that makes one value more valid than any other. Therefore, any particular value can be held by someone, and it is valid and moral for them, no matter what it is. The close-your-mouth-when-eating society is just as justified in using your "ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend" process as you are for your values. Even to the point of executing nonconformists.
    Max, valid means "having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent." If a moral framework is logically rooted, it is valid. Don't see how something can be "more" or "less" valid - it's either valid, or it's not. Further, two opposing moral frameworks can BOTH be valid if they are rooted in fact and reason. They can both be invalid if they are not. You are trying to make objective comparisons without a frame of reference.

    This is the mistake Seer makes. Moral objectivists cannot seem to truly grasp subjectivism. If your moral framework is not exactly the same as mine, then it's not as good as mine - from the perspective of my moral framework. You have the same assessment of mine. What you are describing above is positioned (I think) as if this is somehow a problem. But what you are doing is describing the relative/subjective nature of morality. There is no objective standard for assessing morality. Agreed. That is how morality works. Each of us measures from the framework of our own morality.

    Now can you say something about moral subjectivism to show it is bad that does NOT reduce to "it has no objective basis?" So far - that is all you are doing, and I have already agreed: Morality is subjective and has no objective basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Therefore you have no basis except self interest to persuade, isolate, coerce or contend with someone who has a different and conflicting value to yours. What makes your value right and theirs wrong? Nothing.
    So first, as noted, the valuing can include others (but doesn't necessarily do so). And the basis for convincing others is entirely about the world running the way I think it should. That is what we ALL do, yourself included.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Yet you insist that you have the right to impose your moral values on someone who doesn't hold them, using the full force of the state if need be. That right can't be because your values are in any way better than theirs, because there is no better moral value in your worldview. That right can't be because you know better than they what is best for them, since you are in no way well-enough informed about them, or wise enough to choose for them. If it is because everyone has the right to impose their moral values on others, then you have to accept that whoever is the most willing and able to do that decides morality for the bulk of people. Rule of the violent.
    How it works is pretty simple, Max. People with common values and common moral codes tend to group together. Those moral codes held in common become the "social norm" and the society works to protect its collective values. Those who disagree have the same resources they have always had:

    1) try to convince the group otherwise
    2) align to the group
    3) leave the group
    4) practice civil disobedience and deal with any consequences thereof.

    Any individual has the right to protect what they value, and to form societies that protect what they value. That is democracy at its finest. What you call "using the state to force others" is nothing more than a society encoding its values in laws and saying, "those who want to live here, these are the rules." It is giving the power to the people who make up the society. We seem to applaud that in this country - yet suddenly you decry it? I have to wonder why?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    It can't be for any objective reason such as 'people have intrinsic value' or 'everyone has the right to their moral values' since those things are objective moral values, and thus denied by your worldview.
    It is because we all seek to have an environment that conforms to our moral views. We all work to make it so. We always have.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Subjective morality can't ground a basis for changing, challenging, or restricting the moral behaviour of others except to say that 'I want them to do what I like'.
    Or I want to live in a society that values as I do... and thus has a moral code similar to mine. If yours is not aligned, then I will ignore you for trivial things, isolate/separate from you for more critical things, and contend with you for the most critical things.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    BTW - Do you believe that the physical world is all that exists? If so, then Rosenberg's views are the necessary logical outcome of that.
    I believe in both the physical and spiritual, but the evidence tells me they are not separate and that what is physical gives rise to what is "spiritual" (for lack of a better word). For instance, I have experience of "mind" which appears to be an emergent property of "brain." I have no experience of mind separate from brain, and much evidence that physical alteration to "brain" impacts "mind."

    I cannot claim to be an expert on Rosenberg, having only sampled a bit of his writing. So far, I'm not impressed. Many of his conclusions (like "meaning is illusion") are, IMO, unsustainable.
    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

  11. #190
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    25,602
    Amen (Given)
    1830
    Amen (Received)
    5271
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    My point was actually that I consider Adrift better at it than I. Perhaps you missed that.
    Yes but just a little better, you are still in that top tier, according to you...


    Of that I have no doubt. Yet I think you will be hard to put find that I regularly go after the person, rather than the argument, or seek to belittle. Indeed, I'd be willing to bet that most of Adrift's examples came from places where I had been on the receiving end of multiple such emojis, and finally returned in kind - not something I am proud of, to be sure, and something I pretty much always acknowledge and apologize for when I am back in my "right mind" (so to speak).
    Let me tell you what my experience in debating you is Carp. You use ad hominem as much as any one, you are just more subtle.

    Knowing one's strengths and weaknesses is not pride OR hubris, it's simply self-awareness. I am a person who prefers civil discourse about the issues, and prefers to look at the facts and explore the arguments. I don't usually spend my time accusing others of being hypocrites or attacking their person.* That's not to say I haven't. As I said to Adrift, I can slide into that space when I am tired or stressed, and should know better than to post at those times. That's primarily why I think he's better at it than I. I can also be defensive when I think I'm being misrepresented, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see I'm wordy.
    Just putting yourself in the top tier of posters on this site, from my experience of you, is just delusional.


    ETAAA: Oh yeah - happy Father's Day!
    Same to you bro...
    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...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •