attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 9:53 amYOU"RE the most disgusting BIGOT on the forum. A bigot against the freedoms that the British people over centuries created.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 9:37 amAnd you have been repeatedly asked for a single objective moral rule. Not and entire system, but one single rules. and you have been weighed and found wanting.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 9:49 pm
An excuse.
You were only asked for one thing. One. It could not be simpler for you, and still, you cannot do it.
QED.
You are a failure, a bigot, and an immoral monster who hates personal freedoms, even your own.
TRUMP AHEAD?
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
It seems to me that IC has redefined the word, "morality", to match his own preference. When he talks about morality, he is referring to something different to what most of us understand the word to mean. Morality might not be a matter of subjective opinion as far as IC is concerned, but dictionary definitions certainly seem to be subject to his subjective opinion.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:35 amI think you probably can give a very useful rational explanation for why slavery is wrong, something like it is unfair and unkind and unjustified.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 7:50 pm I genuinely believe that slavery is wrong, but I can't give you a rational explanation for that belief. I can give you a rational explanation as to why I don't want to be enslaved, but I can't give one for why it is wrong for anyone else to be. Now all you have to do is provide the rational explanation.
What you can't do is a foundationalist rationalisation, where there is some indubitable bedrock of morality that is sufficient to build an exclusively rational* morality on top of. The sort of thing that leaves no gaps that must be filled in with preferences or choices that can't be derived from the rational bedrock. The sort of thing where all the edges are neat and no thing that is recommended on one basis would conflict with something recommended upon another.
When you describe morality as being quite obviously inherently subjective, you are being open about not expecting to find that sort of reason. This is not the same as saying there is no reason at all, it's just that what brand of reasoning we have is what we are able to make out of the observations that are available to us.
IC dismisses this as delusion because he doesn't have much talent or imagination and he cannot distinguish between the contingent and the random. You are smarter than he is though, and I think you can see the difference there. The fundamental difference is not at all whether there is reason, it is whether there is a final true answer to every dispute.
Every single person who has argued that if morality isn't objective then it is just made up and useless and you would have to give up on it is just fundamentally bad at philosophy. They have no grasp of the material under dispute.
* exclusively rational as opposed to rational + something else. If we have some preferences that just come with being human such as that we favour honesty and we disfavour cruelty, and if we are not able to establish that there is celstial reason why we don't like cruelty, that doesn't stop you from using the tools of rational justifications on top of them. Contradictions are still bad either way. There are better and worse arguments for why wife beating is wrong either way ....
-
- Posts: 8705
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
As a Christian who claims to have "objective" morality at your calling, maybe you can give a definitive answer as to the following:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 9:37 pm "Objective" has different definitions, you'll find. It is sometimes a synonym for "impartial," as in definition you clipped. But it also is a synonym, in other contexts, for "real." It's context that makes it clear which is intended, and in regard to morality, it's not "partiality" that is in question, but the "real" and "perspective-independent" existence of morality that's in view.
A woman is raped by a psychopathic male and is impregnated. She wants no part of having that man's baby. Is it OK for her to abort the fetus before giving birth and if so, how do you know it is or is not? If you're in possession of objective morality as you claim then you can surely demonstrate what the "objective" answer is. So what is it?
Last edited by Gary Childress on Wed May 22, 2024 11:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Alexis Jacobi
- Posts: 5703
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
It is true that to entertain or believe what I suggested will jettison me from a particular and perhaps dominant strain in modern philosophical thought.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 9:38 amAnd this is the moment you depart from Philosophy and retreat into a fantasy world of your own making.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 10:35 pmIt really is. It’s the ur-answer. If a supernatural power — ...
-
- Posts: 8705
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
Everyone on here is "jettisoned" by some philosophical "strain" of thinking out there. So that's not really saying anything significant. I'm agnostic theistically and according to some that isn't acceptable.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 11:41 amIt is true that to entertain or believe what I suggested will jettison me from a particular and perhaps dominant strain in modern philosophical thought.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 9:38 amAnd this is the moment you depart from Philosophy and retreat into a fantasy world of your own making.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 10:35 pm
It really is. It’s the ur-answer. If a supernatural power — ...
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
Why do you regard what you call the metaphysical as being more than the product of your own imagination? We all see things metaphysically to some extent; maybe on a trivial level, and maybe what seems to us a profound level, but it only amounts to a personal way of looking at things. What one person perceives as a glaring and important metaphysical truth, might well be imperceptible to the rest of humanity.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 11:41 amIt is true that to entertain or believe what I suggested will jettison me from a particular and perhaps dominant strain in modern philosophical thought.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 9:38 amAnd this is the moment you depart from Philosophy and retreat into a fantasy world of your own making.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 10:35 pm
It really is. It’s the ur-answer. If a supernatural power — ...
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6521
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
I think VA has redefined the concept to be the thing that he thinks he can deliver rather than the thing everyone else understands by the word. IC has more sort of narrowed his focus onto duties to the exclusion of all else. So VA's absurd notion that morality cannot discuss right and wrong shows he is mad, as it is for discussing those very things. IC's inability to move beyond imperatives and commands shows he is lacking.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 11:16 am It seems to me that IC has redefined the word, "morality", to match his own preference. When he talks about morality, he is referring to something different to what most of us understand the word to mean. Morality might not be ,a matter of subjective opinion as far as IC is concerned, but dictionary definitions certainly seem to be subject to his subjective opinion.
Rules and explanations for rules are definitely part of what mean when we say we are thinking about what is moral. It's just that there should be more to it than that. Overall, if we look for a definition of morality that includes everything that needs to be included, but excludes everything that doesn't belong, I think we will fail because morality just isn't that sort of definable thing.
That apparent disfunction is sort of why I am a moral antirealist, and I suspect it sort of covers why you are too. I was never persuaded by any particular argument to be any specific type of antirealist, I just looked at the whole thing we're trying to categorise and ultimatley I don't recognise a single definable category there at all.
VA and IC are doomed because they each are trying to elevate one little portion of what we are taking about when we discuss morality to be the prime thing upon which everything else can properly rest. But what exactly is that other stuff they must support? Neither would be able to answer that question, although neither would permit you to ask it anyway.
-
- Posts: 8705
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
I'll even stick my neck out and give you my answer to the above scenario if in return you'll agree to weigh in with your "objective" ruling on the matter and give your answer in the blank below.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 11:39 amAs a Christian who claims to have "objective" morality at your calling, maybe you can give a definitive answer as to the following:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 9:37 pm "Objective" has different definitions, you'll find. It is sometimes a synonym for "impartial," as in definition you clipped. But it also is a synonym, in other contexts, for "real." It's context that makes it clear which is intended, and in regard to morality, it's not "partiality" that is in question, but the "real" and "perspective-independent" existence of morality that's in view.
A woman is raped by a psychopathic male and is impregnated. She wants no part of having that man's baby. Is it OK for her to abort the fetus before giving birth and if so, how do you know it is or is not? If you're in possession of objective morality as you claim then you can surely demonstrate what the "objective" answer is. So what is it?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10653
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
Pakistani rape gangs have been doing this to the children of the UK for years - but the likes of Sculptor will still welcome more of their "ISLAMIC CULTURE" to be part of our society.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:25 pmI'll even stick my neck out and give you my answer to the above scenario if in return you'll agree to weigh in with your "objective" ruling on the matter and give your answer in the blank below.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 11:39 amAs a Christian who claims to have "objective" morality at your calling, maybe you can give a definitive answer as to the following:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 9:37 pm "Objective" has different definitions, you'll find. It is sometimes a synonym for "impartial," as in definition you clipped. But it also is a synonym, in other contexts, for "real." It's context that makes it clear which is intended, and in regard to morality, it's not "partiality" that is in question, but the "real" and "perspective-independent" existence of morality that's in view.
A woman is raped by a psychopathic male and is impregnated. She wants no part of having that man's baby. Is it OK for her to abort the fetus before giving birth and if so, how do you know it is or is not? If you're in possession of objective morality as you claim then you can surely demonstrate what the "objective" answer is. So what is it?
-
- Posts: 8705
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
I assume that is illegal in the UK? For what it's worth, if a person rapes a child, then it seems to me that the perp ought to be sought out and thrown in prison without the possibility of parole, regardless of their ethnic or cultural background. I mean, that seems like a no brainer from where I stand. Is that not the procedure in the UK?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:37 pmPakistani rape gangs have been doing this to the children of the UK for years - but the likes of Sculptor will still welcome more of their "ISLAMIC CULTURE" to be part of our society.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:25 pmI'll even stick my neck out and give you my answer to the above scenario if in return you'll agree to weigh in with your "objective" ruling on the matter and give your answer in the blank below.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 11:39 am
As a Christian who claims to have "objective" morality at your calling, maybe you can give a definitive answer as to the following:
A woman is raped by a psychopathic male and is impregnated. She wants no part of having that man's baby. Is it OK for her to abort the fetus before giving birth and if so, how do you know it is or is not? If you're in possession of objective morality as you claim then you can surely demonstrate what the "objective" answer is. So what is it?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10653
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
No Gary - when British REAL men (not Sculptors) call it out - we are deemed RACIST - the police also fear being labelled RACIST.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:45 pmI assume that is illegal in the UK? For what it's worth, if a person rapes a child, then it seems to me that the perp ought to be sought out and thrown in prison without the possibility of parole, regardless of their ethnic or cultural background. I mean, that seems like a no brainer from where I stand. Is that not the procedure in the UK?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:37 pmPakistani rape gangs have been doing this to the children of the UK for years - but the likes of Sculptor will still welcome more of their "ISLAMIC CULTURE" to be part of our society.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:25 pm
I'll even stick my neck out and give you my answer to the above scenario if in return you'll agree to weigh in with your "objective" ruling on the matter and give your answer in the blank below.
I implore you or anyone of any backbone that believe in our WESTERN ethics to watch this to the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQ94jFg_4A&t=579s
-
- Posts: 8705
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
If a child is raped and the police have evidence of who the rapist is, then who would be stupid enough to call them "racist" for seeking to apprehend the perp (if the perp is indeed suspected for good reason to be an immigrant from Pakistan)? And why should anyone care if someone calls them "racist" for enforcing what seems like a sensible law to protect kids? Do people really call anyone who enforces laws in England a "racist" for doing so?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:52 pmNo Gary - when British REAL men (not Sculptors) call it out - we are deemed RACIST - the police also fear being labelled RACIST.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:45 pmI assume that is illegal in the UK? For what it's worth, if a person rapes a child, then it seems to me that the perp ought to be sought out and thrown in prison without the possibility of parole, regardless of their ethnic or cultural background. I mean, that seems like a no brainer from where I stand. Is that not the procedure in the UK?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:37 pm
Pakistani rape gangs have been doing this to the children of the UK for years - but the likes of Sculptor will still welcome more of their "ISLAMIC CULTURE" to be part of our society.
I implore you or anyone of any backbone that believe in our WESTERN ethics to watch this to the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQ94jFg_4A&t=579s
Back in the 60s, some were calling police officers in the US "pigs" for breaking up civil rights demonstrations or anti-war protests. However, when police protect people from rape or bodily harm, no sane person calls them "pigs". They were called "pigs" because they were being employed by some to break up movements for justice, not because they were doing honorable duties.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10653
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
Yes Gazza - that would be sensible.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 1:05 pmIf a child is raped and the police have evidence of who the rapist is, then who would be stupid enough to call them "racist" for seeking to apprehend the perp (if the perp is indeed suspected for good reason to be an immigrant from Pakistan)? And why should anyone care if someone calls them "racist" for enforcing what seems like a sensible law to protect kids? Do people really call anyone who enforces laws in England a "racist" for doing so?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:52 pmNo Gary - when British REAL men (not Sculptors) call it out - we are deemed RACIST - the police also fear being labelled RACIST.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:45 pm
I assume that is illegal in the UK? For what it's worth, if a person rapes a child, then it seems to me that the perp ought to be sought out and thrown in prison without the possibility of parole, regardless of their ethnic or cultural background. I mean, that seems like a no brainer from where I stand. Is that not the procedure in the UK?
I implore you or anyone of any backbone that believe in our WESTERN ethics to watch this to the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQ94jFg_4A&t=579s
Back in the 60s, some were calling police officers in the US "pigs" for breaking up civil rights demonstrations or anti-war protests. However, when police protect people from rape or bodily harm, no sane person calls them "pigs". They were called "pigs" because they were being employed by some to break up movements for justice, not because they were doing honorable duties.
You have no idea of the power these ISLAMIC scum have over the society of England. BBC - and other broadcast media don't report on "minority community" crime.
To get ACTUAL news of what is occurring with MIGRANT crime - in Britain you need to watch utube channels - mainstream channels refuse to show it.
Watch:-
Mahya Tousi TV
TalkTV
GBNews
TheBritishAngle
Avi Yemini (a Jewish Australian)
Richard The Fourth
Candid with Lubna (A Muslim lady that is EXTREMELY BRAVE)
Harris Sultan
Grooming Gang
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4ak-ERn_k0
-
- Posts: 8705
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
Maybe if you just said, "rapists are scum" you'd get less push back. Or maybe say "child rapists are scum". I mean a Muslim might say all Americans and Brits are "imperialists" after all the turmoil our militaries stirred up in the Middle East under our militarist leaders. At that point you could say, "I'm opposed to militarism, however, I am morally obligated to protect children whether it is popular to do so or not."attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 1:19 pmYes Gazza - that would be sensible.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 1:05 pmIf a child is raped and the police have evidence of who the rapist is, then who would be stupid enough to call them "racist" for seeking to apprehend the perp (if the perp is indeed suspected for good reason to be an immigrant from Pakistan)? And why should anyone care if someone calls them "racist" for enforcing what seems like a sensible law to protect kids? Do people really call anyone who enforces laws in England a "racist" for doing so?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 12:52 pm
No Gary - when British REAL men (not Sculptors) call it out - we are deemed RACIST - the police also fear being labelled RACIST.
I implore you or anyone of any backbone that believe in our WESTERN ethics to watch this to the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQ94jFg_4A&t=579s
Back in the 60s, some were calling police officers in the US "pigs" for breaking up civil rights demonstrations or anti-war protests. However, when police protect people from rape or bodily harm, no sane person calls them "pigs". They were called "pigs" because they were being employed by some to break up movements for justice, not because they were doing honorable duties.
You have no idea of the power these ISLAMIC scum have over the society of England. BBC - and other broadcast media don't report on "minority community" crime.
To get ACTUAL news of what is occurring with MIGRANT crime - in Britian you need to watch utube channels - mainstream channels refuse to show it.
Watch:-
Mahya Tousi TV
TalkTV
GBNews
TheBritishAngle
Avi Yemini (a Jewish Australian)
Richard The Fourth
Candid with Lubna (A Muslim lady that is EXTREMELY BRAVE)
Harris Sultan
Grooming Gang
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4ak-ERn_k0
-
- Posts: 5172
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: TRUMP AHEAD?
I like that guy who stands to Don's left when Don complains to the camera in the parking garage every day after court. The Henry Rollins lookin dude. Lol @ that guy's face. Behind the melodramatic fascade is a guy who can't stand Don, knows he a babbling idiot, but needs the job becuz it pays well and is cooler than being a security guard at the mall.