Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[seer]

Seer - you brought the discussion back to "moral absolutes." My comment was about helping you see how people can defend things they adhere to simply because of an accident of birth. As you have noted about my moral views, the fact is that you also are statistically likely to have been largely influenced by where you were born and the family in which you grew. If you had been adopted as a child by a Buddhist family, statistically you would most likely have been Buddhist. If you had been raised by an atheist family, statistically you would have been highly likely to be posting alongside me in complete agreement. If you had been raised in a family that saw morality as relative/subjective, you'd statistically be most likely to be sitting next to me supporting my observations instead of attempting to refute them. So your confusion seemed a bit odd to me; you are as prone to this phenomenon - and defending your adopted position as a consequence - as any of us.

I don't think I said anything about moral absolutes. And none of this changes my point. The theist is, in his worldview, is arguing for universal moral truths. Truths that can affect one's eternal destiny. And these moral truths would be a fact whether I, or my culture, understood them or not. In other words universal moral truth are not contingent on our knowledge of them.

Ahh.. there's technique number two again: find a way to associate moral relativism/subjectivism to minor preferences like food or clothing so as to ridicule it. I've answered this so many times, and you simply hand-wave away the response and pick another trivial thing to compare it to. Seer, you're locked into your three go-to refutations: tautology (but it's not objective!), ridicule/diminish (it's like picking socks), or argument from outrage (so gassing Jewish children is good). Since you didn't listen to and/or understand the last dozen times I responded to this, there is no reason to think you will do so now either. Why would I waste my time explaining it again?

Carp, it is a fact. If you are correct we are speaking merely of personal or collective preference. You would say that moral considerations have more weight that food preferences, but that belief too is subjective. After all there are certain cultures where eating certain animals is considered immoral. But that is not my basic point - which is - why does one fight so hard for relative ethics that one may or may not hold depending on the place or timing of birth? You project a certainty in your moral view and arguments that just does not exist. Why?

[carpedm9587]

I don't think I said anything about moral absolutes.

You're right - you used the term "universals" this go-around. I transposed it to "absolutes" since you seem to use the words interchangeably. I'll try to be more precise going forward.

And none of this changes my point. The theist is, in his worldview, is arguing for universal moral truths.

No, we're not. We're arguing from our own moral position.

Truths that can affect one's eternal destiny. And these moral truths would be a fact whether I, or my culture, understood them or not. In other words universal moral truth are not contingent on our knowledge of them.

Since no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of such things, I have no response.

Carp, it is a fact.

No - it's a technique, the fallacy of which I've underscored several times. A tautology is not an argument. Arguments from ridicule and outrage are likewise logically fallacious. You just keep coming back to them over and over again, I suspect because you know it's all you have.

If you are correct we are speaking merely of personal or collective preference. You would say that moral considerations have more weight that food preferences, but that belief too is subjective. After all there are certain cultures where eating certain animals is considered immoral. But that is not my basic point - which is - why does one fight so hard for relative ethics that one may or may not hold depending on the place or timing of birth? You project a certainty in your moral view and arguments that just does not exist. Why?

So, I took the liberty of underscoring your foray into the "argument from diminishment/ridicule" (again). It has been responded to several times. Subjective/relative moralism IS about preference, but there is no "merely" to it, and the things we value on which morality is based are about as similar to "food preferences" as a peck on the cheek from your 94-year-old Aunt is related to sexual intercourse with your wife. Both are expressions of love - but they are orders of magnitude different in their depth and importance and meaning. You need to keep ignoring that difference, so I have to assume it is so you can continue to use the "mock and diminish" line of attack. I doubt you would ignore the distinction if you were discussing the morality of a "peck on the cheek" versus "sexual intercourse" with your 15-year old son talking about his relationship with his girlfriend.

Ridicule/diminishment is not really an argument; it's just a debate tactic. Debates are not about truth - they are about "who can win the exchange in the public eye." Congratulations. I'm sure mocking/diminishing is earning you points in this context - but it really doesn't advance the discussion all that much.

As for your "why," this has been asked an answered so many times, and you appear not to have grasped it any of the previous times, so it's not clear to me that setting out to explain it one more time will make any difference to the discussion. The impression I have is that you are not seriously asking to understand. At this point, given the number of times this has been answered, and your tendency to return to approaches 1), 2), or 3), I have to assume your actual reason for asking this is to give you another opportunity to do 1), 2), or 3) and score some more "debate" points.

It's a fool's errand. See my previous responses...


ETA: I have to admit I'm engaging in a bit of "mind reading" of my own. I don't know your actual motivations. So if my observations are incorrect, feel free to let me know.

[seer]

No, we're not. We're arguing from our own moral position.

No, I'm arguing from the belief, right or wrong, that universal moral truths exist. You are not.

Since no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of such things, I have no response.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I can understand the logic of arguing for universal ethical truths forcefully, but not for relative moral opinions. Opinions that are largely the result of the timing and place of birth. That does not make sense to me.

So, I took the liberty of underscoring your foray into the "argument from diminishment/ridicule" (again). It has been responded to several times. Subjective/relative moralism IS about preference, but there is no "merely" to it, and the things we value on which morality is based are about as similar to "food preferences" as a peck on the cheek from your 94-year-old Aunt is related to sexual intercourse with your wife. Both are expressions of love - but they are orders of magnitude different in their depth and importance and meaning. You need to keep ignoring that difference, so I have to assume it is so you can continue to use the "mock and diminish" line of attack. I doubt you would ignore the distinction if you were discussing the morality of a "peck on the cheek" versus "sexual intercourse" with your 15-year old son talking about his relationship with his girlfriend.

Carp, the belief that moral choices carry more weight than food choices is TOO SUBJECTIVE. A man may put more weight on his Aunt's peck than sex with his wife for instance. The importance one assigns is completely subjective. You can't escape this fact Carp. So stop falsely accusing me.

[carpedm9587]

No, I'm arguing from the belief, right or wrong, that universal moral truths exist. You are not.

Of course I'm not. What on earth ever made you think I was? I have been fairly clear that I believe moral universals/absolutes don't exist.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I can understand the logic of arguing for universal ethical truths forcefully, but not for relative moral opinions. Opinions that are largely the result of the timing and place of birth. That does not make sense to me.

So, I return to my observation. This has been explained so many times, you are either incapable of understanding, or unwilling to understand. It is also possible that I just suck at explaining, but I am a teacher by profession. Explaining things is what I do for a living. It seems odd to me that I would be successful enough at it to retire comfortably, but suck at it in this one instance. That being said - while it is implausible to me, it is not impossible. Still, my gut tells me you just don't want to hear it.

Carp, the belief that moral choices carry more weight than food choices is TOO SUBJECTIVE. A man may put more weight on his Aunt's peck than sex with his wife for instance. The importance one assigns is completely subjective. You can't escape this fact Carp. So stop falsely accusing me.

I'm not "falsely accusing you." I'm pointing out that you justify the distinction in one context, and deny it in another. Your approach is inconsistent, leaving the impression that you are only really into the discussion to score another "diminish/ridicule" debate point. I tip my hat to you - you would be an effective debater. Getting the crowd to nod and raise their fist in a cheer is an accomplishment. Unfortunately, it just has nothing to do with "arriving at the truth." It's just theatrics. Your objections continue to be 1) tautological, 2) argument by ridicule/diminishment, and 3) argument by outrage.

All three are fallacious strategies. They are VERY effective in terms of getting a crowd going - and I'm sure your compatriots here are cheering for your savvy. A few have even noted how you leave those atheists "pinned to the board." But your argument, while amazingly effective debate tactics, simply are not philosophically sound. Each of them is a form of reasoning fallacy. So I give it to you that you have "won the debate" (in this context anyway). Unfortunately, you simply have not arrived at arguments that are philosophically sound or valid.

When you actually deal with the issues...then perhaps we will be getting somewhere. But you simply keep returning to the same three strategies.

[Darth Ovious]

So basically Planned Parenthood get to teach "sex ed" at school so kids up end pregnant and then they need to go to Planned Parenthood to pay for an abortion. Sounds like racketeering to me.

[carpedm9587]

So basically Planned Parenthood get to teach "sex ed" at school so kids up end pregnant and then they need to go to Planned Parenthood to pay for an abortion. Sounds like racketeering to me.

[Darth Ovious]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/racketeering.asp

Racketeering, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a "racket") to solve a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service.

[carpedm9587]

So your argument is that PP is pushing kids to have sex so they can benefit from the abortions...?

And you think this proposal is rational?

[Darth Ovious]

So your argument is that PP is pushing kids to have sex so they can benefit from the abortions...?

And you think this proposal is rational?

Based upon their past actions and behavior, yes. I wouldn't trust PP as far as I can spit. Sure I know you and others may disagree but don't be offended when I say I don't trust the opinion of those willing to defend PP.

[carpedm9587]

Based upon their past actions and behavior, yes. I wouldn't trust PP as far as I can spit. Sure I know you and others may disagree but don't be offended when I say I don't trust the opinion of those willing to defend PP.

DO, the opinion of others about me matters only insofar as they can make a case for it. I see no basis for thinking that PP is involved in anything so nefarious. Until I see evidence to think as much, I will extend to them the benefit of the doubt.

[Darth Ovious]

DO, the opinion of others about me matters only insofar as they can make a case for it.

Sure, whatever, don't care.

I see no basis for thinking that PP is involved in anything so nefarious.

I know you don't but you and other opinions on their past actions isn't the same as mine or others on this site. We all watched the video's of them profiteering off the sale of dead baby parts but we disagree on the morality and legality of such things.

Until I see evidence to think as much, I will extend to them the benefit of the doubt.

Of course you will, but we all base our opinions on people and organizations based on their past behaviors and actions. If a person you knew robbed your house several times in the past you're not going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he is looking for a place to stay and welcome him into your home. You wouldn't care about evidence in that scenario.

[lilpixieofterror]

Since that really doesn't have anything to do with what I said, I have no response to your question. Clearly, and act has consequences (and context) and the consequences (and context) are part of determining the morality of the act. The morality springs from the context and consequences. Actions themselves do not have a moral content.

If you question this, then you should be able to tell me if "killing someone" is immoral. I suspect you will not be able to make a moral statement about it until you provide a context and consequences, because killing is moral in some contexts, and immoral in others - as with all acts.

[lilpixieofterror]

Your belief about gay people feeds into a larger narrative marginalizing them, and resulting in their having to work very hard for basic rights/privileges the rest of us enjoy without thought. I have seen your language, Seer. "Sodomizing degenerate" is not the language of a loving, caring person concerned about who is going to be hurt by such language. I have seen and worked with kids struggling to understand their orientation, and the pain and harm the rejection of their church, their neighbors, and even their parents, produces - commonly with language you are prone to. I have a friend who is struggling to make ends meet. He would not have to struggle, but his life partner died 6 months before same-sex marriage became legal, so he does not qualify for the survivor benefits any heterosexual married couple expect as a matter of course. That law would probably have been changed years ago, were it not for the lobbying of people like you speaking out against "sodomizing degenerates."

A person can claim that having the opinion that blacks are lazy, or hispanics are criminals, or white people are racist harms no one to. After all - it's just an opinion. But opinions can and do harm people. They contribute to an atmosphere of rejection and "otherness." And the treatment of the LGBTQ community at the hands of the so-called "moral right" is nothing less than reprehensible.

I am under no illusion you're going to accept any of that. I'm sure you consider yourself innocent of any harm or wrongdoing.

You're wrong.

If your hurt over strangers not approving of your romantic relationships, you likely need to see a psychologist or counselor right away. Sorry, but nobody is entitled to have their personal choices accepted and approved by others.

[Tassman]

Based upon their past actions and behavior, yes. I wouldn't trust PP as far as I can spit. Sure I know you and others may disagree but don't be offended when I say I don't trust the opinion of those willing to defend PP.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction....tion-right-now.

In short the very institutions that Trumpians love to hate.

[Tassman]

Like when you marginalised believers?