If someone claims that it is very important not to tell lies about others, and claims that slander is wrong, yet allows such things in a domain that they control, how committed to Truth are they.
"Strange how the "moral majority" can't denounce in harsh terms the single most narcissistic, sexist, greedy, un-Christ-like president in our lifetimes and they can't clearly denounce rape/slavery as always a great evil... AND that they don't even blink an eye... they don't wonder why the (no doubt) majority of rational moral adults find that appalling and actually vulgar and evil in the extreme."
Strange how Dan claims to be so committed to Truth, yet has no problem basing an entire post on this absurd lie. The fact the I reject his subjective moral code which he has no grounds to apply universally, doesn't mean that I don't agree with his conclusions. I'm merely pointing out that his subjective moral code has no basis to be applied in a universal manner, and the other subjective moral codes (which are subjectively of equal validity) might come to other (yet equally subjectively moral) conclusions. I also reject that some unproven, alleged, majority is the primary factor in deciding what's moral or not.
Finally, it seems to violate Dan's subjective moral code to lie about others, to make straw men based on those lies, then argue against those straw men.
Dan asserts that gravity is objectively True, yet has offered zero objective proof for this claim. As the NCSE points out, gravity is not objectively True.
When Dan asserts gravity is objectively true, he does so along with two other things which are not of the same kind...as in, "which of these is not like the others". I believe something about the taste of ice cream was included. Gravity affects everyone and everything in the same way. Even the lightest thing is affected regardless of how much. Thus, to say gravity is objectively true is not truly debatable. But though most people enjoy the taste of ice cream, not every flavor available has equal appeal if each flavor appeals at all. It's totally subjective. Change "ice cream" with "vegetables" and the point is more starkly drawn. I can't think of any vegetables that I "like", though some are detestable and others tolerable. Not a one compares to Filet Mignon. My wife and daughter both love broccoli and I find it disturbing, though I can tolerate the crap raw if I must eat it. Dan has a problem with debate and discourse, mixing concepts which don't mix, creating analogies which don't help his case and a host of other fallacious attempts to force his twisted thinking into something that is common among men. All the while, he feels the need to pretend he's among men of like mind, as if there are many of them. I don't know why he can't just speak for his own sorry ass and stand convicted in that manner. Must be because he doesn't truly buy his own shtick.
I do agree with one thing he said:
"Strange how the "moral majority" can't denounce in harsh terms the single most narcissistic, sexist, greedy, un-Christ-like president in our lifetimes"
It IS strange, but supposedly 81 million people voted for the scumbag anyway rather than for Trump.
Seriously, though...Dan's "un-Christ-like" description of Trump fits Biden, Obama and Clinton far better and he supported all of them.
"Thus, to say gravity is objectively true is not truly debatable."
Yet, it doesn't actually appear to be provable in any real sense. Obviously something makes things fall, but is it 100% gravity?
Obviously, when he adds things that are merely preference, it cheapens his point.
What Dan seems to want is the effects of a universal, objective moral code. He seems to want to be able to exert his superiority by saying that "X or Y, that those people do, is evil.". But what he doesn't seem to want is the responsibility that comes with asserting a universal, objective moral code. If a universal, objective moral code comes from someone/something outside of Dan's "Reason" and consensus, then he doesn't want to give up control. If a moral code is subjective, he seems to want the flexibility that such a subjective moral code offers, it allows him to lie about others, while declaring lying immoral.
Offering any president, maybe since Carter, as a moral exemplar is a fool's errand. Carter may have been moral, but he made up for that by his incompetence.
7 comments:
Totally belies the claim, doesn't it?
It would seem to, yes.
"Strange how the "moral majority" can't denounce in harsh terms the single most narcissistic, sexist, greedy, un-Christ-like president in our lifetimes and they can't clearly denounce rape/slavery as always a great evil... AND that they don't even blink an eye... they don't wonder why the (no doubt) majority of rational moral adults find that appalling and actually vulgar and evil in the extreme."
Strange how Dan claims to be so committed to Truth, yet has no problem basing an entire post on this absurd lie. The fact the I reject his subjective moral code which he has no grounds to apply universally, doesn't mean that I don't agree with his conclusions. I'm merely pointing out that his subjective moral code has no basis to be applied in a universal manner, and the other subjective moral codes (which are subjectively of equal validity) might come to other (yet equally subjectively moral) conclusions. I also reject that some unproven, alleged, majority is the primary factor in deciding what's moral or not.
Finally, it seems to violate Dan's subjective moral code to lie about others, to make straw men based on those lies, then argue against those straw men.
https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory
Dan asserts that gravity is objectively True, yet has offered zero objective proof for this claim. As the NCSE points out, gravity is not objectively True.
When Dan asserts gravity is objectively true, he does so along with two other things which are not of the same kind...as in, "which of these is not like the others". I believe something about the taste of ice cream was included. Gravity affects everyone and everything in the same way. Even the lightest thing is affected regardless of how much. Thus, to say gravity is objectively true is not truly debatable. But though most people enjoy the taste of ice cream, not every flavor available has equal appeal if each flavor appeals at all. It's totally subjective. Change "ice cream" with "vegetables" and the point is more starkly drawn. I can't think of any vegetables that I "like", though some are detestable and others tolerable. Not a one compares to Filet Mignon. My wife and daughter both love broccoli and I find it disturbing, though I can tolerate the crap raw if I must eat it. Dan has a problem with debate and discourse, mixing concepts which don't mix, creating analogies which don't help his case and a host of other fallacious attempts to force his twisted thinking into something that is common among men. All the while, he feels the need to pretend he's among men of like mind, as if there are many of them. I don't know why he can't just speak for his own sorry ass and stand convicted in that manner. Must be because he doesn't truly buy his own shtick.
I do agree with one thing he said:
"Strange how the "moral majority" can't denounce in harsh terms the single most narcissistic, sexist, greedy, un-Christ-like president in our lifetimes"
It IS strange, but supposedly 81 million people voted for the scumbag anyway rather than for Trump.
Seriously, though...Dan's "un-Christ-like" description of Trump fits Biden, Obama and Clinton far better and he supported all of them.
"Thus, to say gravity is objectively true is not truly debatable."
Yet, it doesn't actually appear to be provable in any real sense. Obviously something makes things fall, but is it 100% gravity?
Obviously, when he adds things that are merely preference, it cheapens his point.
What Dan seems to want is the effects of a universal, objective moral code. He seems to want to be able to exert his superiority by saying that "X or Y, that those people do, is evil.". But what he doesn't seem to want is the responsibility that comes with asserting a universal, objective moral code. If a universal, objective moral code comes from someone/something outside of Dan's "Reason" and consensus, then he doesn't want to give up control. If a moral code is subjective, he seems to want the flexibility that such a subjective moral code offers, it allows him to lie about others, while declaring lying immoral.
Offering any president, maybe since Carter, as a moral exemplar is a fool's errand. Carter may have been moral, but he made up for that by his incompetence.
Post a Comment