Why Be Moral?

[henry quirk]

I believe in the honest craft of workmen. Take a look around you. There never were enough bosses to check up on all that work. From Independence Hall to the Grand Coulee Dam, these things were built level and square by craftsmen who were honest in their bones. R. Heinlein

[henry quirk]

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

"Professor, your words sound good but there is something slippery about them. Too much power in the hands of individuals. Surely you would not want, well, H-missiles, for example, to be controlled by one irresponsible person?"

"My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist, and they do, some man controls them. In terms of morals...men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts." R. Heinlein

[RCSaunders]

I did NOT do this at all. As it is clearly SEEN that I used the word 'perceived' instead of 'perceive'.

Perhaps it's just a language problem. In English, "perceived," is just the past tense of, "perceive," I perceive, I perceived, I am perceiving all refer to the direct conscious seeing, hearing, feeling, etc.

But I think it's more than that.

For example: A new born human body will see, hear, feel, smell, and taste ONLY what actually exists, and ONLY 'that'. Whereas, a much older human body will see, hear, feel, smell, and taste absolutely ANY THING, which the 'you' (the person) inside assumes or believes exists, and ONLY 'that'.

This is just as wrong as it was the first time you wrote, and no amount of explanation can make it true. I've explained why. You obviously are unable to understand that explanation. Believe whatever you want, my friend.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

Is this problem for you? You really cannot think of a reason why it is not in your self-interest to rape and murder? I have no such problem. My objective is to be the best human being I can be and to know all I have and enjoy is because I have earned it and my life is all it can possibly be. My own sense of self-worth and personal integrity make it impossible for me to even consider such a despicable question as you ask. I see it's no problem for you.

I can think of plenty of reasons, but according to you, you don't make "moral" judgments (even though you have contradictorily said that many things are "wrong"), so how would you tell a person who wishes to rape and murder that he is "wrong"?

As far as serious legal or moral philosophy, as well as psychology such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, the theoretical potential to act in violent or aberrant ways which people wouldn't want to "think they would do" nor consciously "plan" to do exists; this is what the philosophy of the law and much legal and moral philosophy is based on (whether "religious", secular, or otherwise), whether denialists like it or not. (For example, the law distinguishes between more serious, "pre-meditated crimes" done rationally and intentionally, from "crimes of passion" or those done while in the heat of the "moment" or an irrational state of mind).

An example that could be easily used would be political or sports violence; in most cases this isn't "premeditated" violence akin to Charles Manson, but rather people acting "savage" or violent under certain conditions while not in a fully rational state of mind.

Government is wrong because there is not a single objective or purpose which it can fulfill, unless you consider oppression, war, mass murder, and the impoverishment of people suitable objectives or purposes.

The types of behaviors which manifest themselves in such ways are by no means solely identifiable with a "hypothetical" state, or many of the false dichotomies surrounding it, such as "public and private" ones, if the actual history of government spending from ancient Rome to the present day is actually attempted to be mathematically accounted for.

there is no reason for anyone to care what I think of how they choose to live their life, because I won't be judging them, reality and their own nature will judge them and, no matter what they think, no one can do wrong and get away with it.

Okay, so you're admitting that rape and murder are "wrong", not just alternative "lifestyle preferences or choices then.

[Age]

I did NOT do this at all. As it is clearly SEEN that I used the word 'perceived' instead of 'perceive'.

Perhaps it's just a language problem.

It is NOT a "language problem" at all.

I use very specific words, for very specific purposes.

I used the word 'perceived' with a 'd' for the very specific reason of BETTER explaining what I was pointing out.

In English, "perceived," is just the past tense of, "perceive," I perceive, I perceived, I am perceiving all refer to the direct conscious seeing, hearing, feeling, etc.

Once again you have completely MISSED the whole point of what I am saying, and meaning.

If this is what you continue to see (or to perceive), then you you will continue to MISS out on seeing (or perceiving) what I have been talking about, and showing (or revealing).

When you have already perceived some thing, then that becomes 'knowledge'. And, when you look at things later on, with or from this now current knowledge, then, as I have been saying, you will perceive things differently than if you just look at things from the Truly OPEN Mind only.

The information coming in will always just be the 'thing' as it IS in its absolute actual existence. However, it is the way you 'look at' things that will affect the way the incoming information is perceived.

The incoming information in a brand new new born human baby is completely and absolutely unadulterated actuality. But with each and every piece of information that has come in there is knowledge forming, which affects the way that continually evolving human looks at and sees things, which then has as affect on the incoming information. The more evolved the human being becomes the more the completely and absolutely unadulterated actuality incoming information can be twisted and distorted from the actual Truth of things.

But I think it's more than that.

For example: A new born human body will see, hear, feel, smell, and taste ONLY what actually exists, and ONLY 'that'. Whereas, a much older human body will see, hear, feel, smell, and taste absolutely ANY THING, which the 'you' (the person) inside assumes or believes exists, and ONLY 'that'.

This is just as wrong as it was the first time you wrote, and no amount of explanation can make it true.

Thank you. What you say here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of EXACTLY what I have been saying, and meaning.

All I will add to this now is; If this is what you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true, then this is ONLY what you will SEE.

I've explained why.

Well that is one way to cop out of explaining anything further or more.

I will tell you now is, you are MISSING THE MARK of what I am saying, and what you are talking about and explaining is something completely different and not in relation to what I have been meaning.

You have NEVER explained why what I have said is wrong because you have not yet understood what I have been talking about.

You obviously are unable to understand that explanation.

Your explanation is NOT in response to, nor even close to, what I have been actually talking about.

Your explanation is only in regards to your OWN assumptions and beliefs of things here.

Believe whatever you want, my friend.

How many times do I have to inform people that I neither believe nor disbelieve anything before they can and will start understanding and accepting this fact?

[RCSaunders]

Is this problem for you? You really cannot think of a reason why it is not in your self-interest to rape and murder? I have no such problem. My objective is to be the best human being I can be and to know all I have and enjoy is because I have earned it and my life is all it can possibly be. My own sense of self-worth and personal integrity make it impossible for me to even consider such a despicable question as you ask. I see it's no problem for you.

I can think of plenty of reasons, but according to you, you don't make "moral" judgments (even though you have contradictorily said that many things are "wrong"), so how would you tell a person who wishes to rape and murder that he is "wrong"?

As far as serious legal or moral philosophy, as well as psychology such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, the theoretical potential to act in violent or aberrant ways which people wouldn't want to "think they would do" nor consciously "plan" to do exists; this is what the philosophy of the law and much legal and moral philosophy is based on (whether "religious", secular, or otherwise), whether denialists like it or not. (For example, the law distinguishes between more serious, "pre-meditated crimes" done rationally and intentionally, from "crimes of passion" or those done while in the heat of the "moment" or an irrational state of mind).

An example that could be easily used would be political or sports violence; in most cases this isn't "premeditated" violence akin to Charles Manson, but rather people acting "savage" or violent under certain conditions while not in a fully rational state of mind.

Government is wrong because there is not a single objective or purpose which it can fulfill, unless you consider oppression, war, mass murder, and the impoverishment of people suitable objectives or purposes.

The types of behaviors which manifest themselves in such ways are by no means solely identifiable with a "hypothetical" state, or many of the false dichotomies surrounding it, such as "public and private" ones, if the actual history of government spending from ancient Rome to the present day is actually attempted to be mathematically accounted for.

there is no reason for anyone to care what I think of how they choose to live their life, because I won't be judging them, reality and their own nature will judge them and, no matter what they think, no one can do wrong and get away with it.

Okay, so you're admitting that rape and murder are "wrong", not just alternative "lifestyle preferences or choices then.

They would certainly be wrong for me, if that's an admission. I have no idea what is wrong for someone else, I only know if what they do is wrong, they will suffer the consequences. I have no idea what your objection is.

[RCSaunders]

Once again you have completely MISSED the whole point of what I am saying, and meaning.

I guess you're right. I'll live with it.

How many times do I have to inform people that I neither believe nor disbelieve anything before they can and will start understanding and accepting this fact?

Now that is very interesting, and very revealing. You've written all these wonderful tortuously complex explanations and you don't believe a word of it.

As for how many time you have to inform people of anything, I'm quite sure the world can get along quite well without your explanations, since you don't even believe them yourself.

[Age]

Once again you have completely MISSED the whole point of what I am saying, and meaning.

I guess you're right. I'll live with it.

How many times do I have to inform people that I neither believe nor disbelieve anything before they can and will start understanding and accepting this fact?

Now that is very interesting, and very revealing. You've written all these wonderful tortuously complex explanations and you don't believe a word of it.

Why is this only now 'very interesting and revealing' to you? I have been saying and revealing the exact same thing from the outset.

As for how many time you have to inform people of anything, I'm quite sure the world can get along quite well without your explanations, since you don't even believe them yourself.

Are you serious here?

I was obviously NOT talking about informing people of "anything". I was OBVIOUSLY talking about informing people in relation to me neither believing nor disbelieving anything.

Really, if you concentrate on just the actual words that I use and write, then you may not misunderstand me as often as you do and/or distort what I say and misconstrue me like the way you do so often do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is the same with secular morality.
The absolute moral standards do not exist in nature and not possible in practice, but the absolute moral standard can be justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

Nope. It cannot be done.

And this phrase "can be justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning" is nothing but a colossal, verbose bluff. First of all, it's in passive voice, grammatically, which allows the sayer to weasel on the question of the doer of the action. Secondly, the term "empirical evidence" does not tell us anything about WHAT evidence you think you have, so it weasels again. Then the phrase "philosophical reasoning" provides no syllogism that reasons philosophically.

So you've done nothing there but make a bald assertion of a thing you cannot actually do, and definitely do not do with that phrase.

I have already provided the links to my justifications.
I am not going to repeat that again.

Ought is Possible from IS
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

The highest Good is the preservation of the human species optimally as evident empirically.

Nope. That can easily be defeated. Easily.

If (as secularism assumes) we are simply the byproduct of evolutionary processes, then it is Survival of the Fittest that has got us this far. Survival of the Fittest is a process that requires the frequent death of the weak and unfit, and the reproduction of the strong. So it makes death a good thing. The survival of all individuals would be actively bad.

Moreover, it isn't even the whole race that any of us has an interest in preserving. For if I am in "the middle of the pack," then achieving my own success under terms of Survival of the Fittest is the way I serve the evolutionary process. I can take no thought for the weak...and indeed, do a disservice to the process if I do. Rather, I am only to strive to be the strong, and let as many die as may, that I may rise. And if I die, then I have failed my 'mission' of becoming the strongest. So I must take no thought for any other, if that thought impairs my survival. I must not worry about this nonsense of "the Race" while my own race is yet being run.

It's every man for himself, and Devil take the hindmost. And there, it begins and ends.

But even if a man should come to me and say, "But it might serve your interests best if a bunch of us survive," the right answer, evolutionarily, is, "It serves my interest that YOU think so. And it serves my interest that OTHERS think so too. But it does nothing but harm my own prospects if I imagine I owe you anything from that. If I die, all is lost. So keep believing in your foolish 'good of mankind,' and I will continue as I am, thank you very much."

Strawman again.
I did not claim the 'Survival of the Fittest'.
Secular simply means non-theistic which can be anything.
Don't be rhetorical just because I used the term secular.

My secular absolute moral oughts do not take into account death by diseases which are beyond the control of humans.

It is the necessity of such a stipulated standard that will drive every gold miner and producer to improve on their quality and purity to improve on the existing quality if they have not done so.

Nope. It will not "drive" anything. Greed for gold or desire for success will "drive" the smelter. The standard will only let him know once his own "drive" has achieved what he is "driven" to desire. The standard does not create either the desire or the action of smelting.

Rhetoric again.
The point is if the ideal standard is set and expected to be met, then it will naturally drive improvements towards the ideal in the appropriate circumstances.
This is so common.
Have you heard of the ZERO DEFECT standard in Health, manufacturing, etc. Surely you cannot insist the zero defect [death by negligence] in health is due to greed. What is stupid idea is that.

But that isn't true. So we can't "say" that without being arbitrary, and, in fact, wrong.

First of all, people (empirically speaking) kill all the time. You need an "ought." But you aren't going to be able to get one from any reference to empirical situations ("is" situations) and you certainly don't have one in this case. People DO kill.

Secondly, it's not at all true that killing is always bad. If a man breaks into another's house, with the aim of stealing his possessions, harming his children and raping his wife, and the man fights back, and in the course of the struggle kills the home-invader, he's not a murderer...he's a hero.

Human beings DO kill each other. Human beings even LIKE to kill each other -- especially rivals for resources, enemies, and malefactors. Some humans even like it for entertainment, as the Roman Colosseums were full of screaming crowds of death-lovers.

On what basis do you prove to them they're wrong to do so?

You missed my point as you always do.

I have already justified the moral ought from empirical evidence, i.e. as "programmed," no human would want to be killed except the mental case.

I have stated many times, yes there will be a percentile of people who will kill other humans for various reasons.
That is why we need an ideal to improve and progressively reduce the number of people killed by introducing effective measures.
If there is no ideal standard, it is likely people will stop improving if they think what they have achieved is enough but they do not have any idea of what is the ideal standard.

If there is no absolute moral standard, people will accept 400,000 homicides per year as the norm and would not be bothered to do anything about it.

So? Worriers over overpopulation would even have to say that is a good thing. In fact, they would have to say that MORE people need to die.

Again your thinking is very shallow.
In parallel with the establishment of moral oughts within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethic, there will be a system to improve on their uncontrollable sexual impulse that drive them to produce like rabbits.
There will be other systems that will contribute to the OPTIMAL well being of the individual and therefrom to humanity.

All humans are also "programmed" for improvements over any existing state.

Doubtful. But even if true, who "programmed" them? Their "program" will be no more important than the name of the one who created that program. And if, as per secularism, the "program" is just a product of accidental forces, why should we listen to it? Why should it not be like other "programs" -- like our "program" for violence -- that you say we ought to conquer?

Stupid thinking again.
I deliberately used "programmed" in ".." to ensure in this case, no one resort to the immature thinking of 'who is the programmer'.
What we have here is empirical evidence of changes that point to evidence of improvements. From that we infer the processes involved as "programmed" because we can trace that to the DNA/RNA codes. Note the usual relation of 'code' to 'program' as in computer technology and IT.
A person may be 'programmed' for violence if he is unfortunately brought up and exposed to a certain social environment, there is no specific 'programmer' in this case. It is the same with being "programmed" to be an alcoholic and drug addict.

If your son happened to be caught in such a program and became an alcoholic, a drug addict,is a rapist and is violent, you would have to listen to it and sent your son for reprogramming [e.g AA, etc.] to reverse his negative potential if you are responsible father.

As you will note from the above, you are always a few step behind because your thinking is shallow and narrow as evident. [This is not ad hominen but stating the facts].

Heh. Still ad hominem. You really don't have any idea what ad hominem means, do you?

Here's a guideline for you: anytime you say "You think X because you are Y," you are ad hominem. It's ad hominem not because it's not true, but because it's irrelevant.

It's like saying, "You're only saying that because you're a woman." It doesn't matter that it's a woman speaking. Whether she's a woman or not will not decide whether or not what she has said is true. Her being a woman won't turn a truth into a lie, or a lie into a truth. It's the truth of her idea itself that will decide.

Insults are not arguments.

Your example are not relevant.
If you are student and keep scoring below 20/100 in all your subjects, then you can be labelled as stupid*, i.e. of low intelligence. The label may not sound nice but this is an objective fact.
*stupid = https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stupid?s=t

I agree if I called you out without facts, then that would be ad hominen and offensive.

In this discussion you are always chasing my points and I have to 'educate' you why I am claiming for such and such a proposition as justified.
Show me one point you have check-mated me?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There could be exceptions for individual performance but they are an exception not the general norm.

I'm only interested in the exceptional. Ants, herd animals, and those creatures who have not thrown off the influences of their DNA/RNA may work well in teams, but human beings only excel as individuals.

Between 1785 and 1958 (just 173 years) the following discoveries and inventions were made, more or less, in the order listed: the use of foxglove (digitalis) for treating heart arythmias; Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass; Volta's electric battery; Dalton's atomic theory; refrigeration; steam locomotive; stethoscope; Faraday's electric motor; photography; internal combustion engine; Ohm's law (electricity); Avogadro's (gas) law; Faraday's electrical generator; first enzyme, diastase, isolated; refrigerator; all plants are made of cells proven; Goodyear's' vulcanization of rubber; chemical fertilizer; anesthesia; Helmholtz law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics); absolute zero defined; Bessemer steel making process; oil drill; lead acid battery; Pasteurization; vaccination; Mendel's basis for genetics; dynamite; periodic table; Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism; electric lights; telephone; Tesla's induction motor; Edison's phonograph; Boltzmann's statistical definition of entropy; Röntgen's x-rays; Thomson's electron in cathode rays; cathode ray tube (oscilloscopes, TV); automobile; Tesla's radio; diesel engine; magnetic tape recorder; air conditioner; neon lamp; Arthur D. Little's rayon cellulose ester; electrocardiograph (EKG); heavier-than-air powered flight; triode amplifier; washing machine; cellophane; bakelite: cracking process for gasoline; Bohr model of the atom; helical structure of DNA; stainless steel; neoprene, nylon; microwave radar; jet engine; computer; transistor; Shannon's information theory; nuclear power reactor; laser; integrated circuits; communications satellites.

With the exception of the helical structure of DNA, the transistor, and the Wright Brothers, of course, these discoveries and inventions were all accomplished by individuals, often in the face of great collective and popular opposition. Every one of these are ideas that make the world we take for granted in the West what it is. Not only is every convenience and luxury we enjoy the direct result of these discoveries and inventions, our very health and longevity would be impossible without them.

Note as the common saying goes,
"behind every great/successful man there stands a woman"
the same principle applied to whatever success that is attributable to the above scientists, in this case, their assistants, critiques, funders, university, etc..
The above scientist listed may be listed as the discoverer but they did not do it alone but assisted by assistants and others.

Note the other saying;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_ ... _of_giants
Standing on the shoulders of giants is a metaphor which means "Using the understanding gained by major thinkers who have gone before in order to make intellectual progress"

In the entire history of the world every advance in civilization, every gain in knowledge, and every improvement in the human condition has come solely through the efforts of independent individualists. They and they alone are the creators, innovators, and discoverers of the world. These men are all there is of positive importance in all of history; all the rest, the tyrants, the dictators, the famines and plagues, earthquakes, floods, the mass of ignorant and superstitious humanity, the crimes and the wars were important only in the negative.

How could you insist the tyrants and the dictators, were not individualists based on your above arguments.
Nazism is attributed solely to Hitler and he was individual who wrote Main Kempf where the Nazis constitution was grounded upon.

But the fact is the emergence of the above either good or evil consequences is grounded by a team of people which may be led by an individual.

Thus my point what prevails is the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics not the Philosophy of Individualism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

absolute moral standards do not exist in nature and not possible in practice

Poppycock.

I exist and it's, for example, absolutely unnatural for me to be owned by another.

More generally, it is absolutely unnatural for a person, for a human being, to be owned by another.

So: there's your absolute moral standard (ownness), existing naturally, perfectly possible in practice.

What my point meant is there is no absolute moral standards, i.e. an ought.
You need to differentiate between what is nature [practice] and what is in theory only.
In theory we can establish a perfect circle with its defined properties, but such a perfect circle can never be found in Nature or in practice.

Yes, you can deal with not being owned by another, but you cannot force everyone other than yourself into that position.
Nature is never perfect, thus in nature there will always exists a state where there are weirdoes who will not conform to the moral ought.

The absolute moral ought therefore exists only in theory as reasoned [not in nature] and can only be a GUIDE to ensure one is not owned in any circumstances.

[Immanuel Can]

I have already provided the links to my justifications.

They don't work. You've been repeatedly shown that, you just don't believe it.

I am not going to repeat that again.

There would be no value in you doing so. You would need some new, much better argument than that.

The highest Good is the preservation of the human species optimally as evident empirically.

Nope. That can easily be defeated. Easily.

If (as secularism assumes) we are simply the byproduct of evolutionary processes, then it is Survival of the Fittest that has got us this far. Survival of the Fittest is a process that requires the frequent death of the weak and unfit, and the reproduction of the strong. So it makes death a good thing. The survival of all individuals would be actively bad.

Moreover, it isn't even the whole race that any of us has an interest in preserving. For if I am in "the middle of the pack," then achieving my own success under terms of Survival of the Fittest is the way I serve the evolutionary process. I can take no thought for the weak...and indeed, do a disservice to the process if I do. Rather, I am only to strive to be the strong, and let as many die as may, that I may rise. And if I die, then I have failed my 'mission' of becoming the strongest. So I must take no thought for any other, if that thought impairs my survival. I must not worry about this nonsense of "the Race" while my own race is yet being run.

It's every man for himself, and Devil take the hindmost. And there, it begins and ends.

But even if a man should come to me and say, "But it might serve your interests best if a bunch of us survive," the right answer, evolutionarily, is, "It serves my interest that YOU think so. And it serves my interest that OTHERS think so too. But it does nothing but harm my own prospects if I imagine I owe you anything from that. If I die, all is lost. So keep believing in your foolish 'good of mankind,' and I will continue as I am, thank you very much."

Strawman again.
I did not claim the 'Survival of the Fittest'.

So you don't believe in Evolution? That's the currently popular secular explanation. If you have a different one, then say what it is.

It is the necessity of such a stipulated standard that will drive every gold miner and producer to improve on their quality and purity to improve on the existing quality if they have not done so.

Nope. It will not "drive" anything. Greed for gold or desire for success will "drive" the smelter. The standard will only let him know once his own "drive" has achieved what he is "driven" to desire. The standard does not create either the desire or the action of smelting.

Rhetoric again.

No, it isn't. Rather, it's a substantive difference. Standards are abstractions. Abstractions do not have causal powers.

You've made what's called a "category error," by placing "standards" in the category we would call, "causally-powerful entities." They're not one of those.

I have already justified the moral ought from empirical evidence, i.e. as "programmed," no human would want to be killed except the mental case.

But you've not realized that it's utterly irrelevant what a person would "want," in that case. We could equally argue, that since no person wants to age, to lose hair, or die at all, no person should age, lose hair, or die -- and that's obviously silly. Whether or not death is going to come is unrelated to "wanting" it to happen.

All humans are also "programmed" for improvements over any existing state.

Doubtful. But even if true, who "programmed" them? Their "program" will be no more important than the name of the one who created that program. And if, as per secularism, the "program" is just a product of accidental forces, why should we listen to it? Why should it not be like other "programs" -- like our "program" for violence -- that you say we ought to conquer?

I deliberately used "programmed" in ".." to ensure in this case, no one resort to the immature thinking of 'who is the programmer'.

The fact that you imagine a "program" exists does not justify any claim that it does. But even if it did exist, who is to say you and I are duty-bound or morally obligated to follow this program?

You think we have to overcome our program to kill each other. I suppose you would also say we should overcome our "programs" to steal, or to compel sexual activity, or any number of other things we routinely do among humans. So what is the basis on which you say this "program," of all our "programs" is a "good" one, but all the others are "bad"?

What we have here is empirical evidence of changes that point to evidence of improvements.

We do not. We killed more human beings in the last century than in all human history to that point combined.

But suddenly, you now DO believe in evolution -- only moral evolution, but not physical evolution: because if you believed in physical evolution, you would have to believe in Survival of the Fittest, which you say you don't...

As you will note from the above, you are always a few step behind because your thinking is shallow and narrow as evident. [This is not ad hominen but stating the facts].

Heh. Still ad hominem. You really don't have any idea what ad hominem means, do you?

Here's a guideline for you: anytime you say "You think X because you are Y," you are ad hominem. It's ad hominem not because it's not true, but because it's irrelevant.

It's like saying, "You're only saying that because you're a woman." It doesn't matter that it's a woman speaking. Whether she's a woman or not will not decide whether or not what she has said is true. Her being a woman won't turn a truth into a lie, or a lie into a truth. It's the truth of her idea itself that will decide.

Insults are not arguments.

Your example are not relevant.

Go read a website on ad hominems then. You'll see who's wrong.

Here ya go: https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

[RCSaunders]

Once again you have completely MISSED the whole point of what I am saying, and meaning.

I guess you're right. I'll live with it.

How many times do I have to inform people that I neither believe nor disbelieve anything before they can and will start understanding and accepting this fact?

Now that is very interesting, and very revealing. You've written all these wonderful tortuously complex explanations and you don't believe a word of it.

Why is this only now 'very interesting and revealing' to you? I have been saying and revealing the exact same thing from the outset.

As for how many time you have to inform people of anything, I'm quite sure the world can get along quite well without your explanations, since you don't even believe them yourself.

Are you serious here?

I was obviously NOT talking about informing people of "anything". I was OBVIOUSLY talking about informing people in relation to me neither believing nor disbelieving anything.

Really, if you concentrate on just the actual words that I use and write, then you may not misunderstand me as often as you do and/or distort what I say and misconstrue me like the way you do so often do.

I was concentrating on the actual words you used. I mistakenly thought you were using them as all normal English speaking individuals use them, not with your own private meanings. Now, as far as I'm concerned you can use words any way you choose, but if you care if anyone is going to understand you, you might want to know what most other people mean by the words you use and how they will understand them.

Just so you'll know, what most English speakers mean by, "believe," as that which, to their best reason and knowledge, is true. If someone says, "I believe abrin is a safe food additive," it means, to the best of their knowledge abrin is perfectly safe to eat. If someone says, "I believe abrin is a safe food additive," but knows abrin is a toxin more dangerous than ricin, they are lying. if someone says, "I believe abrin is a safe food additive," but does not even know what abrin is, they are also lying.

So when you say something, then claim you neither believe or disbelieve it, to a normal English speaker it means, you have no idea if what you are saying is true or not. To a normal English speaker, that is lying. I know that is not what you intend, but that is what the words you are using, as you are using them, mean to everyone else.

Now, if I'm mistaken, and you really mean you have no idea if what you are saying is true or not, you need to say that up front, so others don't waste their time considering what you have to say.

[Age]

I guess you're right. I'll live with it.

Now that is very interesting, and very revealing. You've written all these wonderful tortuously complex explanations and you don't believe a word of it.

Why is this only now 'very interesting and revealing' to you? I have been saying and revealing the exact same thing from the outset.

As for how many time you have to inform people of anything, I'm quite sure the world can get along quite well without your explanations, since you don't even believe them yourself.

Are you serious here?

I was obviously NOT talking about informing people of "anything". I was OBVIOUSLY talking about informing people in relation to me neither believing nor disbelieving anything.

Really, if you concentrate on just the actual words that I use and write, then you may not misunderstand me as often as you do and/or distort what I say and misconstrue me like the way you do so often do.

I was concentrating on the actual words you used.

No you were not. Just one example of this is you thought/assumed I was saying 'perceive' when in actuality I was saying 'perceived', which completely misconstrues and takes out of context exactly the point I was making.

I mistakenly thought you were using them as all normal English speaking individuals use them, not with your own private meanings.

There is absolutely NO 'normal' english speaking individuals.

Words evolve, and their meanings and definitions change. Besides this many words have many different definitions, and some words have completely opposite meaning definitions.

The fact is the very reason human beings are confused and misunderstand each other is because there is NO 'normal' english language to speak.

Now, as far as I'm concerned you can use words any way you choose, but if you care if anyone is going to understand you, you might want to know what most other people mean by the words you use and how they will understand them.

You are so BLINDED by your own BELIEFS here.

Just so you'll know, what most English speakers mean by, "believe," as that which, to their best reason and knowledge, is true. If someone says, "I believe abrin is a safe food additive," it means, to the best of their knowledge abrin is perfectly safe to eat.

Is this Truly what so called "most english speakers mean when they use the word "believe"?

Where source did you get the relative word "most" from exactly?

Also, are you suggesting that "most" english speaking individuals 'believe' in things that they do not even know, for sure, if it is even true?

If yes, then why would you and why do you believe things that could be completely false or wrong anyway?

If someone says, "I believe abrin is a safe food additive," but knows abrin is a toxin more dangerous than ricin, they are lying. if someone says, "I believe abrin is a safe food additive," but does not even know what abrin is, they are also lying.

This seems a bit far of track. But anyway,

So when you say something, then claim you neither believe or disbelieve it, to a normal English speaker it means, you have no idea if what you are saying is true or not.

If that is what this means to you ( and/or so called "normal" english speaking individuals, then I will inform you now; What you are assuming and/or believing here is absolutely and utterly completely untrue.

From what I see, for anyone to assume and/or believe such a thing BEFORE clarifying what the actual Truth IS is a very foolish and very stupid thing to be doing. But, then again, I am NOT generally classed in the "normal" class.

To a normal English speaker, that is lying. I know that is not what you intend, but that is what the words you are using, as you are using them, mean to everyone else.

Wow, before it was "most" but now it is "everyone" else. I wonder who is lying now, or at least exaggerating somewhat?

By the way, you have it around the wrong way. That is; I first claim to neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, and then, I say something. Some people though just do not to get to hear it in this order.

Now, if I'm mistaken, and you really mean you have no idea if what you are saying is true or not, you need to say that up front, so others don't waste their time considering what you have to say.

But you have NEVER considered what I have actually said. You have just made assumptions about what I am saying, then jumped to conclusions, BEFORE you even start clarifying what I am actually saying and meaning. You are absolutely free to choose this way of communication, but when you do it this way with me, you will just about on all occasions be wrong.

This is because I write in a very specific way, for a very specific reason.

[henry quirk]

What my point meant is there is no absolute moral standards, i.e. an ought.

I don't get all this fixation on ought.

If it is in the nature of man to be free, if ownness is part & parcel of personhood, then it is simply, objectively, wrong to enslave a man, so don't leash man. Seems to me more of a should not than an ought to.