-
Craig... Unfortunately he doesn’t start be asking what is True. He acknowledges that some sort of Truth exists, but that it’s absolutely impossible for us to know that Truth.ReplyDelete
Bullshit. This is utterly ridiculous vomit.
I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO KNOW TRUTH. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.
7. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?
Rather, I have said that much about morality is SELF-EVIDENT and ABUNDANTLY CLEAR and JUST NOT THAT DAMNED DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, and certainly not as difficult as you all appear to think it is.
8. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?
I DO ASK THE QUESTION, "WHAT IS TRUE?" and do so regularly.
9. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?
I've just noted the reality that, no matter how self-evident and relatively clear it is, we can't PROVE AS AN OBJECTIVE FACT that your opinions about moral questions are authoritatively objectively factual.
There is a difference between ABUNDANTLY CLEAR and OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE.
An increasing majority of the world thinks it is abundantly clear that gay and lesbian folk marrying is a holy, beautiful, glorious great moral good and a joy to all. However, in spite of that abundance of clarity, some Muslims and Christians would still think it's okay to jail or kill or outlaw such activity, because they hold a contrary opinion. BUT the opinion that Marshal and some extremist Muslims hold that it is NOT immoral to kill people for adultery or homosexuality is not a provable one. Indeed, it is a great immoral atrocity and that much is clear. Just not provable.
10. Craig, do you agree with Marshal that it's NOT a great immorality to kill adulterers and people engaged in homosexual acts or do you agree with me that this would be a great immoral atrocity?
Ten questions that will almost certainly go ignored.
Especially the one about SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM IF you are going to claim that you can objectively prove your opinions about morality.
Look, it seems like we're having two different conversations, here.
One (yours in your post here) is that there are some Truths that are better than others and that some Truths (and sets of morality) will clash and disagree and even "exclude others..." That is without a doubt, true and factual.
Of course I think some Truths and morality are better than others. I disagree with you all (conservatives) regularly because I think the Truths and morals that I'm advocating are stronger, better, more ideal than yours and that, in some cases, your truths and morals are just bad/wrong.
Marshal, for instance, can not condemn the idea of killing adulterers or those engaged in homosexual acts as a great immorality. I find such a set of Truths that would allow him to consider such atrocities a potentially moral action (or at least that would render him unable to say it is immoral) is a pathetic "truth" system and one in conflict with basic decency and valuing human rights. Some extremists in other nations even support jailing gay folk or killing them. Of course, I find such "truth systems" and values to be reprehensible and immoral.
Maybe you do, too, Craig? Feel free to take a stand.
The point is, if the question is, Do some philosophies and religions have "bad Truths" and morals? The answer is yes and we are almost certainly all in agreement there.
Am I right?
So, when you're arguing that some philosophies/religions are worse than others, you're not arguing against anything I'm saying.
The SECOND argument (what I've been talking about) are what rules do we have in a diverse culture and what is the basis for those rules?
I'm saying (going back to your argument here) that some religions and philosophies - especially the ones who think they hold "objective truths" and who think that their god would encourage denying rights to some people and think they are objectively "right" to think this - are NOT a good basis for determining morality in the public space. I'm saying that the best criteria/guidelines for establishing common rules in a diverse society is the Golden Rule/Do No Harm/Human Rights criteria.
Do you disagree?
Sunday, March 29, 2020
Clearly there’s a comprehension problem
Due to a conflict between my promise to post Dan’s comments, as opposed to his random deletions of comments, and my desire to focus one particular post on the specific topic of that particular post I’ll be copying his off topic, and or expletive filled rants here.
7 comments:
-
Craig said...
-
Art, this comment is more at home here in this version of purgatory for Dan.
“I think it's really worse than that insofar as within a single society, not everyone adheres to what he thinks is "self-evidently" true, say nothing of different societies near or far. Your question #1 pushes against his theories and preferences. He just resists or lets it just sit there unacknowledged, much less answered.” -
March 29, 2020 at 11:04 AM
-
Craig said...
-
From Dan
Regarding my comment that Marshal can't condemn killing adulterers, here's what he said, lest you doubt what I said... DAN: "DO you agree that killing adulterers (especially women) is a great immorality? One that does not benefit all people, of course?" MARSHAL: No. I agree that they are worthy of death, just as God said they are. Likewise, then, Marshal would support the killing of men caught "lying" with other men, even in the context of marriage... Marshal would say that it is moral to kill married men in that situation. I say that's an atrocity by the Golden Rule/Do No Harm set of criteria, but would be acceptable or even moral by extremist Chistian or Muslim "reasoning." Which is why, societally, we should not have a religious test for morality, but a reason-based one that relies upon GR/Do No Harm/Human Rights as a guideline for criteria. on I think
Publish | Delete | Spam -
March 29, 2020 at 11:06 AM
-
Marshal Art said...
-
For a guy who claims to have been a journalism student...one that drew accolades for his work...I would have expected something better than what he did in the comment immediately above. He gave only a portion of my response...which is typical leftist journalism. This explains his getting the vapors over Trump's righteous reference to the press being an enemy of the people. Dan reports the same way the left-wing media does, so it seems natural to him. He sees no problem misleading by leaving out relative points or ignoring context. By leaving out the rest of my response, he is effectively lying about my position...which is typical, given he's a liar.
And as if that isn't bad enough, he has at the same time accused the God to Whom he claims to be devoted of being greatly immoral. God should know better than to run afoul of Dan Trabue. -
March 30, 2020 at 8:17 AM
-
Craig said...
-
"Thus, one goal of a SOCIETY is to find common ground on morality, or what rules we will live by. Is slavery okay?"
Based on the definitions of morality that you provided, as well as your belief that morality is not universal or objective, the only rational answer (which also most closely aligns with what we observe in the real world), is that some societies say yes and some say no.
"Can I rape "slutty" women (as Marshal and rapists call them)?"
See the answer above, and the multitude of information I've given you on the evolutionary necessity of rape. Of course, I would argue that rape is wrong no matter what the type of woman we're talking about. The real answer is, no you personally can't rape anyone.
"How about taking things that don't belong to me, is that okay?"
Interesting question, since you've previously argued that it is under certain circumstances. So, from your viewpoint, the answer is maybe. But, see my first answer as well.
"1. Do you disagree with what I'm ACTUALLY saying?"
In theory, yes. But anything that crosses societies, can't (according to the definitions you offered) be morality. It's possible to enact laws to regulate behaviors across societies, which is what we do in the real world.
"2. Craig, at one point at least, acknowledged that his opinions are not facts, they are his opinions on morality. Do you still affirm that, Craig?"
I'm tempted to say no, just because you are such an insufferable ass when you pull this idiotic bullshit. But, yes I do and I've never wavered in the least. I know it might be hard to admit, but the problem could be that you rely too much on what you perceive the "appearance" to be, and not enough on reality.
"5. Can you objectively prove your opinions on morality are authoritatively objectively factually correct?"
I don't know who this was addressed to. But, if you are going to demand that I prove something, at least have the decency to provide some instance where I've actually made the claim that you are demanding I prove. You simply demanding bullshit is a waste of everyone's time.
"7. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?"
Since I don't want to go back and find your quotes that lead me to believe otherwise, I'll conditionally say yes. If I find evidence to the contrary, I'' revisit my answer.
"8. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?"
I understand that you have made those claims. I also understand that you haven't addressed my objections to the Truth of those claims from weeks ago. I also understand that you haven't proven that those claims are True. You've simple asserted them.
"9. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?"
OK, so what.
-
March 30, 2020 at 10:19 AM
-
Craig said...
-
"An increasing majority of the world thinks it is abundantly clear that gay and lesbian folk marrying is a holy, beautiful, glorious great moral good and a joy to all. However, in spite of that abundance of clarity, some Muslims and Christians would still think it's okay to jail or kill or outlaw such activity, because they hold a contrary opinion. BUT the opinion that Marshal and some extremist Muslims hold that it is NOT immoral to kill people for adultery or homosexuality is not a provable one. Indeed, it is a great immoral atrocity and that much is clear. Just not provable.
This isn't a question, but I have to address it. You are literally arguing that gay marriage is "a holy, beautiful, glorious great moral good and a joy to all" based on the opinions of an undefined and unproven "increasing majority of the world". Unfortunately, this contradicts the definitions you provided as well as your assertions that it is "SELF EVIDENT" and "ABUNDANTLY CLEAR". Obviously, reality shows that it is NOT "SELF EVIDENT" or "ABUNDANTLY CLEAR". Further, what should be provable, your claim that a majority of the world thinks that "it is abundantly clear that gay and lesbian folk marrying is a holy, beautiful, glorious great moral good and a joy to all." you haven't even bothered to prove. So, let's decide morality based on your opinions about other people's opinions. Great plan.
FYI, for you to prove your claim, you have to prove all of it. I don't know why I bother, because you won't prove any of it.
'10. Craig, do you agree with Marshal that it's NOT a great immorality to kill adulterers and people engaged in homosexual acts or do you agree with me that this would be a great immoral atrocity?"
In the absence of evidence that Art actually said what you claim he said (I'd think a person with such an eminent background in journalism education wouldn't make these sorts of claims without citing the evidence), I'll pass on answering your question as asked. I would agree with you that homosexuals should not be killed for their acts. It's interesting that you single out Art, who has more than likely never killed a homosexual (or sentenced one to death) while glossing over the multiple countries which are actively engaged in an activity you find immoral. In general, protesting someone who HASN'T done something you claim is immoral, while remaining relatively mild in your criticism of countries who are ARE engaging in this practice seems bizarre. I'll tell you what, how about you put out a Facebook post where you in blunt and direct terms condemn and call for an immediate end to the death penalty for homosexuality (I can't help but notice your silence on the death penalty for apostasy)? Beyond that, how about you organize a (post Wuhan virus) protest outside the embassies of countries that are actively engaged in this action? Maybe even gather some friends and visit one of those countries to protest there?
"Ten questions that will almost certainly go ignored."
Well, that's one false claim that'll certainly be excused and lied about.
"Especially the one about SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM IF you are going to claim that you can objectively prove your opinions about morality."
Since I've never made such a claim, you claiming that I have is simply, plainly, self evidently, and abundantly clearly, false. Your demand that I support a claim that I haven't made, makes absolutely zero sense in the world of reality. For someone with your eminent journalism education and awards, I'm surprised that you would make these sorts of false claims. For someone who asks "WHAT IS TRUE", it seems strange that you would make a claim that is clearly not True. It leads me to wonder if (despite you asking the question) you actually know what Truth is. -
March 30, 2020 at 10:19 AM
-
Craig said...
-
"Of course I think some Truths and morality are better than others."
Yet you adamantly deny the fact that you believe in multiple Truths, contradict yourself much? Clearly, it's impossible to rank one morality as better than another, because that requires some sort of objective criteria to rank them by. But, by saying "I believe", you relegate this claim to merely a matter of personal preference with absolutely no real value whatsoever.
"Maybe you do, too, Craig?"
I've already pointed out that you're making claims about Art without supporting them, so I'm not going to join you in slandering someone based on only your biased opinion. I do find that the death penalty for homosexual acts to be wrong. Of course if you paid attention, you'd know this. Let's not forget that I'm not the one who wrote some glowing posts about the wonders of Islam. Posts that never condemned killing gays.
"The point is, if the question is, Do some philosophies and religions have "bad Truths" and morals? The answer is yes and we are almost certainly all in agreement there. Am I right?"
No, you're not right. There can only be one Truth, not multiple Truths. Of course, the claim that there are "bad morals" is an objective claim. If morality isn't objective then this sort of comparison has no meaning and it contradicts the definitions you provided.
"The SECOND argument (what I've been talking about) are what rules do we have in a diverse culture and what is the basis for those rules?"
Any idiot understands the need for rules in a diverse world like the one we live in. However to equate those rules to morality is something that you haven't demonstrated to be True. Indeed, some societies consider things which are illegal to be moral. Or are you now suggesting that we legislate morality.
"I'm saying (going back to your argument here) that some religions and philosophies - especially the ones who think they hold "objective truths""
This completely misrepresents the argument I am making in the other post. So, you disagreeing with an argument I'm not making seems pathetic, pointless, and stupid, as well as a waste of time.
"and who think that their god would encourage denying rights to some people and think they are objectively "right" to think this - are NOT a good basis for determining morality in the public space."
Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the post.
"I'm saying that the best criteria/guidelines for establishing common rules in a diverse society is the Golden Rule/Do No Harm/Human Rights criteria."
Yes, you've been saying (and modifying) something like that for quite a while. Yet "best" is an objective term, and you haven't even bothered to explain why it's better than the reasonable, rational, science based alternatives I've offered. In what wold do you simply get to declare something to be the "best" without actually demonstrating the Truth of that claim.
If you look at the actual words you used, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that indicates that your claim is an opinion. But, even if you could explain away your self evident fact claim, you still haven't even bothered to attempt to demonstrate that your hunch is better than the options provided, you just anointed it the "best".
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, I disagree with the notion that someone can simply announce that they have the "best" of anything without demonstrating that the statement is True.
Oh, snap! -
March 30, 2020 at 10:44 AM
-
Craig said...
-
OK, as to your claim about SSM
SO far 30 countries out of 195 allow it. That doesn't actually provide any sort of sense regarding all the qualifiers you put on it.
Given the fact that Russia, China, and India aren't on the list, there's absolutely no way to extrapolate out to your claim.
Opinion polls worldwide indicate 53% against, 34% for 13% undecided
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Same-sex_marriage_opinion_polls_worldwide
So, it would seem that the following are true about your claim.
1. There is not a majority approval of SSM
2. There is apparently no way to verify your "holy, beautiful, glorious great moral good and a joy to all" claim. But given the societies that haven't legalized and their population, and falsehood of the first part of your claim, it seems likely that the second part is false also.
-
March 30, 2020 at 12:40 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Craig... I'm going to start be questioning the assumption that the goal of morality is to "find common ground".
This is not anything I've said. What I HAVE said is that it helps us as a society to find common ground on questions of morality. Thus, one goal of a SOCIETY is to find common ground on morality, or what rules we will live by. Is slavery okay? Can I rape "slutty" women (as Marshal and rapists call them)? How about taking things that don't belong to me, is that okay?
Societies HAVE to find some common ground on rules, which is to say, morality, because otherwise, we'd have a hellish anarchy.
1. Do you disagree with what I'm ACTUALLY saying?
Marshal... The entire quote was an attempt by Dan to dodge the initial question of how he determines an objective morality.
It is not. You're just factually mistaken. There is NO dodge and I clearly DO strive to determine morality. BUT, we can't objectively prove our opinions about morality as an objective fact. I DO recognize that reality. And it is reality. If it's not, you all are welcome to prove objectively your opinions about morality are objectively factual.
2. Craig, at one point at least, acknowledged that his opinions are not facts, they are his opinions on morality. Do you still affirm that, Craig? Because you appear to waffle back and forth on the question.
3. Marshal, if you can PROVE objectively your opinions about morality are objective facts, please do so.
Marshal... a morality that exists regardless of whether or not we do.
I do, too. You keep acting like I don't, but I've been quite clear on the point.
4. Do you recognize that reality?
Craig... Those preconceptions include his assertions that various things “can’t” be proven and that there certain things that can’t be know with any certainty.
Craig, I would LOVE if you can prove your opinions about morality are objectively provably factually correct. Even if it's contrary to something I believe in currently. Why? Because I value morality and want to be moral.
5. Can you objectively prove your opinions on morality are authoritatively objectively factually correct?
6. If so, please do so. IF NOT, please admit it clearly. Stop waffling (I don't view such waffling to be very moral.
More...