TRUMP AHEAD?

[Walker]

Well according to the website Snopes.com,

There's a popular expression ... Snopes is for dopes.

I'm surprised you haven't heard it.

I'd like to hear Flannel's thoughts on your observations concerning the picture, and what that means philosophically.

After all she posted the picture.

But man I tell you, it's like pulling teeth.

What is she afraid of?

[Gary Childress]

Well according to the website Snopes.com,

There's a popular expression ... Snopes is for dopes.

I'm surprised you haven't heard it.

I'd like to hear Flannel's thoughts on your observations concerning the picture, and what that means philosophically.

But man I tell you, it's like pulling teeth.

What is she afraid of?

I'm more interested in your thoughts on the matter. Looking at Snopes' treatment of the story they appear to have done a pretty fair assessment of the incident from what I'm seeing. That seems laudable. Why do you think "Snopes is for dopes"?

[Walker]

I'm more interested in your thoughts on the matter.

I didn't post the picture. I'm an objective observer.

If the is picture real, I could offer a philosopical posting.
If the picture is fake, I could offer a philosophical posting.

If I had posted the picture, I could offer a philosphical posting.

My thoughts are my own. I share at my pleasure, not yours.

[Flannel Jesus]

It speaks for itself, miss trump. Your need for the picture to be fake is too consuming for you.

[Gary Childress]

I'm more interested in your thoughts on the matter.

I didn't post the picture. I'm an objective observer.

If the is picture real, I could offer a philosopical posting.
If the picture is fake, I could offer a philosophical posting.

If I had posted the picture, I could offer a philosphical posting.

My thoughts are my own. I share at my pleasure, not yours.

Were you not looking for a philosophical discussion on the picture as you stated?

[Sculptor]

Walker's Mum, (might be his aunt too), has a message for you.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ExmditA-rCA

[Gary Childress]

Walker's Mum, (might be his aunt too), has a message for you.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ExmditA-rCA

Hopefully, she'll sit Walker down and have a rational discussion with him. Doesn't look like anyone else can.

[Walker]

It speaks for itself, miss trump. Your need for the picture to be fake is too consuming for you.

It speaks for itself, miss trump. Your need for the picture to be fake is too consuming for you.

Uh, no.

- It's like I said, already.
- Your picture. Your obligation to comment about your picture.
- It's not my obligation to comment about your picture.

- In fact, if it's still there, the posting guidlines for PN say that you should write a commentary when posting pictures. You did not. Perhaps you should be reported to the authorities for this violation.

- Your topic, not mine. I just made an insulting observation, and now you want me to write about your picture, for you.

That's fascinating, Miss Balls.
You could be suffering from TDS, the silent killer of intellect.

[Walker]

Were you not looking for a philosophical discussion on the picture as you stated?

Sure, initiated by Flannel's explanation of the picture. Pictures require commentary, as suggested by the forum, or least it once was, I haven't bothered to look since I first saw it, since it's a totally rational suggestion.

This has been explained. What's your game, playing dumb?

[Gary Childress]

Were you not looking for a philosophical discussion on the picture as you stated?

Sure, initiated by Flannel's explanation of the picture. Pictures require commentary, as suggested by the forum, or least it once was, I haven't bothered to look since I first saw it, since it's a totally rational suggestion.

This has been explained. What's your game, playing dumb?

Do you want a rational discussion? If so, then I'll oblige. If not, then you'll have to go solo.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't really care if you change your mind or not. I suspect you're not going to go on a murder spree any time soon, (not that you'd last 10 minutes in a fight with a real psychopath probably).

Well, this is a philosophy site, Gary, as you know. And the idea is that people will give logic and evidence for things they believe, not just yell louder that they believe them, right?

It's an unfortunate fact of life that no one has yet come up with definitive answers as to what morality is and what makes something moral.

That's certainly not the case. Some people have proposed answers, alright. Kant, Bentham, even Aristotle...but that the secular ones are all dusty is quite true.

The problem is their first premise, which is Atheism. That's the reason that it looks like, as Nietzsche saw, morality turns out to be a fake.

But it's not. Nietzsche's whole problem was his "God is dead" theory...which he never even attempted to prove, and acted like was a done deal, and then yelled louder than everybody else. People are still fooled by that trick. But as even Nietzsche saw, it makes morality into nothing.

So I'm not the one rubbishing morality. The Atheists are. They're just not as logically consistent in that as their "saint," Nietzsche was. They abandon their Atheism when they arrive at morality, and pretend it can be a thing founded on nothing. They want to leap into the air and stay there.

[Immanuel Can]

If God does not exist objective morality may still have a basis other than God.

I'd actually like to see somebody do that. People talk about it, but they never demonstrate it.

Take any precept you like. Let's say...a permission to do something we'd all concede is "good," such as, say:

• Saving a child's life.
  Giving to charity.
  Feeding the hungry.
  Telling the truth.

Or, let's take a prohibition of some kind, one we'd all likely agree with, such as:

• No slavery.
  No murder.
  No genocide.
  No rape.

Show that any such permission or prohibition really can have a basis other than God. I'm keen to see how you'd get that done.

Whatever has an even number of letters will be considered to be moral. Whatever has an odd number of letters will be considered to be immoral. Numbers will be considered amoral.

Seriously? C'mon...give us a real answer. This is a serious question. After all, if a theory of morality cannot even support a single precept that you and I regard as clear and reasonable, then how good can that theory be?

But as objective morality does not exist, you have made a claim that God does not exist.

That's a logical error, I'm afraid. It's rather like saying, "If there's no hay in the barn, then the barn didn't exist." Morality is not the totality of God, obviously. And you can easily imagine how a "god" like that of the Islamists, the Gnostics or the Deists could exist while no objective morality existed.

What you said is like saying,
“If A then B”
“Not B”
Therefore Not A.

You're jumping to an incorrect assumption.

I'm not making the case that because Subjectivism is false, therefore objectivism is true. I've pointed out repeatedly that the road from Subjectivism leads not to objectivism at all, but to Nihilism. The choice is between objectivism and NO morality. But I've so far never suggested that Nihilism isn't an option. In fact, as Nietzsche saw, it's the ONLY rational option left to somebody who has already dismissed belief in God...and I am honouring that fact.

Want to be a Nihilist? You can, logically speaking. And you'll be, at least, rationally consistent. Want to be a Subjectivist? You can...but not with logic. You'll be irrational and inconsistent.

The case for objective morality cannot be made without the premise that it's at least possible that God exists. If you think it can, then I'm wide open to seeing how it could be. And if you can do it, you'll be the greatest moral philosopher the world has ever seen...greater than Kant, Mill, Bentham, Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche, Camus, Aristotle, Aquinas, Rorty, Foucault...your career and reputation will be secured forever, you can be certain. For a grounds for morality that does not require belief in God has long been the "unholy grail" of moral philosophy. The man who finds it will be a secular hero.

So have a go. You've got everything to win, and nothing to lose.

Morality isn’t necessary.

It isn't necessary if you're going to live as a total hermit. It is, if you want to be in a society. If even one other person enters your life, so does concern for morality. You have to ask yourself, "What do I owe this person, and what does she owe to me?" Otherwise, you can't live in the same area.

[Gary Childress]

I don't really care if you change your mind or not. I suspect you're not going to go on a murder spree any time soon, (not that you'd last 10 minutes in a fight with a real psychopath probably).

Well, this is a philosophy site, Gary, as you know. And the idea is that people will give logic and evidence for things they believe, not just yell louder that they believe them, right?

Then start supporting your arguments with evidence or logic. I haven't seen either from you.

[Immanuel Can]

No God, no morality. If you think otherwise, just show what I asked you to show: that you can justify one moral precept. Just one. Any one, with no reference to objectivity.

We know that everybody has subjective moral opinions, so the only question is, is there any other kind of morality;

It isn't, actually. Because you haven't established that any of those opinions are actually "moral." You say that they involve "moral issues," (i.e. "implicating the ethics of a situation, good or bad" -- though you deny that objective "good" and "bad" even exist, so there are no moral categories, for you) and you think that your use of the term "moral" there satisfies the need to make their pronouncements "moral" in a different sense, (i.e. "good," or "worthy of value"). But that's the amphiboly error again. "Moral philosophy" doesn't mean "righteous" or "good" philosophy. It just means philosophy in which questions of value are raised.

But I think you can see that, and are maybe just pulling my leg on that. It's awfully obvious.

I don't see how there could be such a thing as objective moral truth,

And you never will. Having arbitrarily ruled out the existence of God, you will not find any grounds at all for morality...objective or subjective. But the fault is in your own first premise, not in morality itself.

and I'm pretty sure you don't have an argument that would make me change my mind.

I'm thinking that's probably true. Unfortunate, but maybe inevitable. I can't change your erroneous assumption for you.

[Harbal]

No God, no morality. If you think otherwise, just show what I asked you to show: that you can justify one moral precept. Just one. Any one, with no reference to objectivity.

We know that everybody has subjective moral opinions, so the only question is, is there any other kind of morality;

It isn't, actually. Because you haven't established that any of those opinions are actually "moral."

I know for sure that I have feelings about right and wrong, and that is what morality is, and that is what I am referring to when I talk about morality. You are obviously talking about something else entirely.

I don't see how there could be such a thing as objective moral truth,

And you never will. Having arbitrarily ruled out the existence of God,

I find your idea of God completely implausible, and have ruled it out on that basis, so I dispute having done it arbitrarily. And it makes no difference, anyway, because I don't recognise God as being an objective source of moral truth if he did exist. Morality is always relative to something, like our attitude towards the suffering of others, for example. Why should we care about the suffering of others? I don't know, but most people do, and I don't see what difference God makes to that.

and I'm pretty sure you don't have an argument that would make me change my mind.

I'm thinking that's probably true. Unfortunate, but maybe inevitable. I can't change your erroneous assumption for you.

I'm not aware of presenting you with any assumptions.