TRUMP AHEAD?

[Sculptor]

Yeah, I thought so. You've got nothing.

You are, as usual, just making an arse of yourself.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/socie ... ties-list/

You poor soul...that's a puff piece.

Yes, I chose it because you are a cream puff.
I do not think you have the attention span to read the archaeology and serious athropology

[Immanuel Can]

...serious athropology

I think you mean "anthropology." It's good it's "serious," though, or I'd have thought it was lame.

[Harbal]

Then you "incorporate" an idea that isn't even possibly true. It's incoherent --

The words, "true" and "coherent", are not applicable.

They're applicable to everything, so long as it's true and applicable. If your version of morality isn't true or applicable, then exactly what virtues does it have?

We have spent enough time putting my version of morality up against the wall for you to shoot at, enabling you to still further avoid making a fool of yourself by talking about yours.

Explain how a moral precept can be a matter of fact.

[Immanuel Can]

We have spent enough time putting my version of morality up against the wall for you to shoot at...

Is it dead yet?

If not, why not? I've shown that logically, it makes no sense at all, even on its own terms. Why is it still kicking?

[Gary Childress]

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

Gary, setting yourself up as the arbiter of rationality is amusing.

Gary, whether formed as question or statement, your go-to input for philosophical discussion consists of: Asking questions of others that others ask of themselves, saying I don’t know, and expressing feeling-based personal opinions, projection, and conjecture-based non-sequiturs often rooted in mis-interpretations which are either intended or not. These habits generate laughter, but not serious philosophical discussion. Even an irrational hypothesis requires a rational presentation to qualify as serious. Graphics and pictures without commentary to at least establish relevance also generate laughter when intended as philosophical commentary.

One of the things that would generate serious philosophical discussion is commenting on why commentary accompanying a picture or graphic is required for that graphic or picture to be part of a serious philosophical discussion, and not a just part of a chuckle. I have already done this, seeing as how that is what caught my eye, and that was a topic I found interesting.

Without commentary, I can only assume that a poster so-wants what they think the graphic expresses, to be true ... based on their unexpressed reasons of why they think the graphic expresses what they think it expresses.

Laughter is good! Assuming a philosophical equivalence between rationally supported opinions and your go-to based opinions, simply on the basis that both are opinions, is also chuckle-inducing.

Have it your way.

[Sculptor]

...serious athropology

I think you mean "anthropology." It's good it's "serious," though, or I'd have thought it was lame.

I'm surprised you've heard of it, since you think the world began 4004BC

[Sculptor]

I love the way Repugnats cheer personal freedoms, whilst proposing a national register of pregnancies so the Feds can control abortion choices on a Federal level.
The same group of clowns that refused to have a register of assault rifles..

Pregnant women are more dangerous that people with guns, according to Republicans.

[Sculptor]

The words, "true" and "coherent", are not applicable.

They're applicable to everything, so long as it's true and applicable. If your version of morality isn't true or applicable, then exactly what virtues does it have?

We have spent enough time putting my version of morality up against the wall for you to shoot at, enabling you to still further avoid making a fool of yourself by talking about yours.

Explain how a moral precept can be a matter of fact.

When you are talking to him you might find it useful to take that wall of which you speak and bang your head against it. It has no answer and can give you no answer that your questions.

[accelafine]

Don't let us down America. We want to see Mr. Orange win again

[mickthinks]

… because you hate America and its freedoms.

[accelafine]

Right. Must be that

[mickthinks]

Yep—no other explanation.

[accelafine]

Humans are fucked anyway, so we might as well have a laugh on the way out-- and a laugh at the expense of the US and its contagion of wokesters is as good a reason as any.
When things have got so good that professional complainers and virtue-signallers have to invent 'causes' to complain about then we know we have a pretty major problem on our hands. When society has devolved so easily back to the days of 1930s German then we know we have a major problem. When the people screaming for 'transrights' (whatever those are) are the same people shrieking in support of Hamas and 'freeing 'palestine'' (whatever THAT means), an organisation that happily throws gay men off roofs, then we know we have a major problem.

Never mind the civil rights movement of the sixties, it's vulnerable, marginalised people like this who are the real victims of human unkindness. They just need a hug and all the rights that they deserve as women. They feel unsafe in male toilets and changing rooms. Why should they be deprived of the 'transjoy' of showering with women in women's prisons/changing rooms etc?


These are the most 'vulnerable and marginalised' people in society today. And this is only the tip of the iceberg:

marginalised 2.jpg (69.09 KiB) Viewed 145 times

RIP humankind and thanks for all the fish. It's awfully disappointing that it has come to this. So much wasted potential.



A distraction like Mr. Orange is just what the doctor ordered

[commonsense]

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?

Yes, seriously. Odds-and-evens is as worthy a basis for morality as any other arbitrary standards are, including the arbitrary standards that you have championed, which is dependent on the supposed but never proved existence of God.

Speaking of what you and I regard as clear and reasonable, here’s an experiment to show just how much you and I agree about morality. Please answer the following for me:

Abortion—is it morally acceptable or not?
IVF—moral or not?
Capital Punishment—moral or not?

For me the answers are acceptable, moral, moral. Let’s compare and find out how much we agree.[/quote]

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.

All that you’ve said in the previous 4 paragraphs has nothing to do with your ignorance of simple predicate logic. But don’t be embarrassed. Don’t feel you’re being attacked. There’s no shame in ignorance.

See if you can follow this: in the modus example above, let A = God exists, and let B = objective morality exists. This means, as you unwittingly claimed, that if God exists then there must be an objective morality that exists. But as you can see from our experiment above, or at least from the disagreements of many others across a significant divide, there cannot be an objective form of morality that exists at all. Since there can be no objective morality, and since there must be an objective morality if God exists, there can also be no God that exists. QED.

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.

Morality isn’t necessary for the essence of a human. One can survive and procreate without morals. Power would then replace morality as the measure of right and wrong. Sad, but true.

[commonsense]

Crime and Punishment refutes that quip.

It's about the effects of bucking inherent morality.

What kind of morality did the ancient humans need?

There's no ancient society that doesn't have a conception of morality. Just like there are no ancient Atheist societies, and no ancient societies where women ruled over men. Some things are just universal.

Ancient humans were those who were pre-society.