Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[EvoUK]

I notice seer doesn't like the discussion to focus on his proving or defending his objective, absolute, universal moral codes.

I assume asking questions is a good debate tactic as it means he never has to defend his own position.

[seer]

Actually, I was responding to your statement that it's "just my opinion." Pretty much all of humanity functions with gradations in their subjective choices. You need to dismiss that as real to engage in your "Technique #2: minimize/diminish/ridicule." You also need to use words like, "just," "merely," etc. They are all part of the same debate strategy. As I said, effective debate tools - logically flawed as philosophical arguments. For some reason, you don't seem to understand that.

Carp, you are not actually responding to the point - again! You have not once shown where my logic is off, you just throw out an argumentum ad populum. Which does not tell us anything.

If, again, the Nazi assigns more value to his dinner than the life of a Jewish child that is his opinion. - you cannot resist engaging in "Technigue #3: argument by outrage." Out come those nasty Nazis and those poor Jewish children every time. However, I have noted several times that moral subjectivism/relativism is indeed a form of opinion. It is, by definition, relative and subjective. So you haven't said anything here.

Sheesh! What exactly do you disagree with, where exactly am I logically off? Do you disagree that a man can value a meal more than the a life of a child?

And there is no right or wrong answer here. - And there is "Technique #1 - the tautology." Of course, you left out the words "absolute/universal," because what you are trying to say is "And there is no absolute/universal right or wrong answer here. - absolutely correct. A relative/subjective moral framework will produce relative/subjective moral truths, no absolute/universal ones. So all you've done is repeated (for the bazillionth time) that relative/subjective morality is not absolute/universal. Congratulations. You won that argument - and succeed in saying absolutely nothing - because we already knew that was true. It's what the words mean! What you haven't done is shown that morality is NOT relative/subjective.

Carp, I'm going to go back to what seemed to set you off, I said:

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 than food preferences, but that belief too is subjective.



What is exactly wrong with this statement? You don't like the word merely? That moral moral considerations may not have more weight than food preferences - like with our Nazi? But we know that can be true. What exactly is your beef?

[seer]

I notice seer doesn't like the discussion to focus on his proving or defending his objective, absolute, universal moral codes.

I assume asking questions is a good debate tactic as it means he never has to defend his own position.

So you don't believe that things like child rape are universally wrong?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you are not actually responding to the point - again! You have not once shown where my logic is off, you just throw out an argumentum ad populum. Which does not tell us anything.

Seer, I have not responded to your "logic" because you haven't provided any. You just keep doing the same things over and over, Techniques 1-3.

Sheesh! What exactly do you disagree with, where exactly am I logically off? Do you disagree that a man can value a meal more than the a life of a child?

Nope - I do not disagree that it is possible for a man to value a meal more than the life of a child.

Carp, I'm going to go back to what seemed to set you off, I said:

Set me off? Seer, you seem to be under the impression that I am upset or angry. I am nothing of the sort. This is just a discussion - nothing more. I am actually taking the afternoon off, watching a silly movie, and relaxing - posting when someone else posts. I am not upset in the least. I am merely pointing out your absence of any workable argument. You aren't saying anything.

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 than food preferences, but that belief too is subjective.


What is exactly wrong with this statement?

All of morality is subjective/relative, Seer. I think I have said that several times, in several ways. We already know this. Then, of course you toss in "merely" as Technique #2. I suspect you think this makes your position appear stronger. Since I have not seen you put forward a logical position, it doesn't.

You don't like the word merely?

You can use any word you want, Seer. I am pointing out that "merely" and "just" and all of their ilk is just your way of engaging in Technique #2: ridicule/diminish. You aren't making substantive arguments - you're simply using "it's just subjective," or "it's merely opinion" as a way of minimizing the arguments so you can dismiss them.

Why should I be careful when I drive, it's just your dog.
Don't be all upset about the theft. It's merely money.

These are not philosophical statements or arguments. They are just an attempt to make the position look "weak" or "less." As I said, they're effective debate strategies. They just don't advance the cause of arriving at the truth.

That moral moral considerations may not have more weight than food preferences - like with our Nazi?

Wow. Technique #2 and Technique #3 in one sentence! Seer, I am actually beginning to find this a bit amusing. Do you REALLY believe you're making an argument here?

But we know that can be true. What exactly is your beef?

I don't have a beef. I'm merely pointing that you want a response to your logic, but you aren't offering any logic for me to respond to. You're just engaging in debate tactics. You have yet to make an argument. So when you engage in shallow debate tactics, I call you on it.

It's no skin off my nose. But if you want to make a case for absolute/universal morality, or that moral relativism/subjectivism is non viable, you're going to have to do better than simply continually repeating the definitions of the terms, attempting to ridicule/diminish them with language, or attempt to appeal to outrage. Those are not positional, logical, arguments.

Seer, when we first started talking about morality, someone told me that they enjoyed watching you "engage the atheists and take their positions apart." I found myself kind of hoping I would finally encounter someone making substantive arguments for moral objectivism/absolutism/universalism. As I said early on, I had never found anyone doing anything other then repeating a tautology ad infinitum. Ridicule and outrage come in a close second and third. So I have to admit to some disappointment to find you are basically doing the same thing everyone else does.

Someday - I hope someone actually DOES put forward a logical, reasoned argument for why relative/subjective moralism is nonviable, or for the existence of a universal/absolute moral framework.

[seer]

Me: That moral moral considerations may not have more weight than food preferences - like with our Nazi?


Wow. Technique #2 and Technique #3 in one sentence! Seer, I am actually beginning to find this a bit amusing. Do you REALLY believe you're making an argument here?

Let's focus here. Do you agree my point can be true? That a man could value a meal more than the life of a child? So when you say that I minimize moral considerations by conflating them with food choices why, exactly, am I wrong when we both know that a man could value a steak over the life of a child, or a man could value a good meal over bedding his wife? How am I minimizing anything when both these can be true? I really don't see your point.

[carpedm9587]

Let's focus here. Do you agree my point can be true? That a man could value a meal more than the life of a child?

Seer - if we're going to focus, it would help if you actually read my responses. I have already responded to this. My answer was, yes - I agree it can be true.

So when you say that I minimize moral considerations by conflating them with food choices why, exactly, am I wrong when we both know that a man could value a steak over the life of a child, or a man could value a good meal over bedding his wife?

Part of your technique is to pepper your posts with language like "just" and "merely." Instead of saying, "So, to you, morality is a matter of opinion," you say, "So, to you, morality is merely/just a matter of opinion." It's a subtle argument by diminishment. Good debate tactic, but the insertion of "merely" or "just" doesn't change the content of your statement - it merely expresses your condescension towards the position. The other part of your technique is to consistently link deeply held moral convictions with lightly held personal preferences. So "life" is equated with "pizza topping" or "beer brand" or "<insert something trivial here>."

Since I have said, repeatedly, that morality IS a form of personal opinion, IS subjective, is a matter of choice - the only purpose for making these associations is to attempt to ridicule the position. Again, good debate tactic - I'm sure they're cheering for you. It says nothing about the position. I've already told you "subjective/relative" necessarily means individual and opinion-based. Since I've already agreed with you, you have nothing left but your three techniques.

How am I minimizing anything when both these can be true? I really don't see your point.

That much is clear.

[EvoUK]

So you don't believe that things like child rape are universally wrong?

You do understand this is sort of a case in point. You have passed the burden of proof into your 'opponent' and steadfastly refused to defend or argue your own position.

Objective/absolute/universal morality or standards - I believe you were going to argue in favour of it? Do go ahead and do so- you've had enough opportunity to argue against subjective morality as you see it, let's see how yours is better.

[seer]

Part of your technique is to pepper your posts with language like "just" and "merely." Instead of saying, "So, to you, morality is a matter of opinion," you say, "So, to you, morality is merely/just a matter of opinion." It's a subtle argument by diminishment. Good debate tactic, but the insertion of "merely" or "just" doesn't change the content of your statement - it merely expresses your condescension towards the position. The other part of your technique is to consistently link deeply held moral convictions with lightly held personal preferences. So "life" is equated with "pizza topping" or "beer brand" or "<insert something trivial here>."

That is exactly my point Carp, thanks for swerving into it. A man may find just as much importance in his food choices as you do in your moral choices. Why do you minimize his preferences? And by minimizing what he finds important you are also being condescending. But you have no logical grounds to be condescending, nor do you have logical grounds to chide me for comparing the two.

Since I have said, repeatedly, that morality IS a form of personal opinion, IS subjective, is a matter of choice - the only purpose for making these associations is to attempt to ridicule the position. Again, good debate tactic - I'm sure they're cheering for you. It says nothing about the position. I've already told you "subjective/relative" necessarily means individual and opinion-based. Since I've already agreed with you, you have nothing left but your three techniques.

Carp you have debated me enough to know I that often frame things is stark relief. You see this as a tactic, I see it as bringing clarity.

[seer]

You do understand this is sort of a case in point. You have passed the burden of proof into your 'opponent' and steadfastly refused to defend or argue your own position.

Objective/absolute/universal morality or standards - I believe you were going to argue in favour of it? Do go ahead and do so- you've had enough opportunity to argue against subjective morality as you see it, let's see how yours is better.

Just answer the question Evo. Do you believe that things like child rape are universally wrong? BTW - I am answering your question, you just don't see it yet.

[carpedm9587]

That is exactly my point Carp, thanks for swerving into it. A man may find just as much importance in his food choices as you do in your moral choices. Why do you minimize his preferences?

Because "possible" and "probable" are two different things. Yes, what you describe is possible. That is not how the vast majority of humanity moralizes. So you take the most extreme case, hold it up in a ridiculing fashion, and think you've said something. You haven't. Morality is subjective/relative. That makes it opinion-based. I already said yes. Next point?

Or you can just keep coming back to "Technique #2" and pat yourself on the back that you've actually said something. Up to you...

And by minimizing what he finds important you are also being condescending. But you have no logical grounds to be condescending, nor do you have logical grounds to chide me for comparing the two.

Sure I do. Such a person has a shallow, adolescent morality. Such a person is rare. It would be the equivalent of my pointing to people who take your "absolute" morality and use it as a basis for torturing homosexuals. After all, according to the OT, they ARE supposed to be killed. But I know that this is an extreme, and rare, position. I would be making a caricature of your belief system. That is not how most Christians believe.

But this is your debate tactic: find the most trivial of preferences, equate it with morality, and then think you've said something. I frankly expected a bit more of a robust position.

Carp you have debated me enough to know I that often frame things is stark relief. You see this as a tactic, I see it as bringing clarity.

No - it's a tactic. "Stark relief" is just your euphemism for condescension. So yes, in a subjective/relative moral framework, it is possible for someone to value food more than the life of a child. They will see that as "good" if they do. The situation is likely very rare, but I have not collected data on it, so I cannot "prove" that to you.

And that proves moral relativism/subjectivism is an incorrect worldview exactly how?

[carpedm9587]

Just answer the question Evo. Do you believe that things like child rape are universally wrong? BTW - I am answering your question, you just don't see it yet.

I can answer this quite easily. In my moral framework, there is no circumstance in which child rape is a good - ergo it is "universally wrong." The only place where it could conceivably chosen as a course of action is if it was a scenario in which an even greater evil was the only other viable alternative.

[Darth Ovious]

You're in a minority.

As to the bold I don't care. I am allowed to disagree with everybody else if I want.

1. Planned Parenthood

2. FBI

3. #MeToo Movement

4. Special Counsel Robert Mueller

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

In short the very institutions that Trumpians sensible people love to hate.

FTFY

[Darth Ovious]

No - we did not all see that. I saw a smear video of people pretending to be researchers who were not, engaging a PP rep in a discussion about fetal tissue. There is no doubt that the PP person was callous in their language, but there is also no evidence that PP ever did anything more than recoup the administrative cost of providing the service. They've now even stopped recouping those costs because of the optics, which just means those costs are now being born by taxpayers and clients.

Correction, YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT. I and others did see it. I don't care about YOUR interpretation of the events. I don't care to trust you on them. OK?

A person who has robbed me has lost claim to my "benefit of the doubt." PP has not done anything to lose that claim.

Well they did with me. It doesn't matter how many more vids come out in regards to their actions cause it won't change your mind on the issue.

[carpedm9587]

Correction, YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT. I and others did see it.

IMO, because you bought into a narrative unsupported by the facts.

I don't care about YOUR interpretation of the events. I don't care to trust you on them. OK?

DO, what you do and do not care about is not all that relevant to me. I'm simply reporting where I think your perspective is "jumping the rails." I am under no illusion that my posts are going to alter your perspective one iota.

Well they did with me. It doesn't matter how many more vids come out in regards to their actions cause it won't change your mind on the issue.

Actually, if data surfaces that they actually profited from the sale, my point of view will change. So far, other than accusations from the right, no data has surfaced to suggest this is the case. So, for now, my views will remain as they are. If you have actual sources/data that PP is profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, by all means let's look at it.

[seer]

Because "possible" and "probable" are two different things. Yes, what you describe is possible. That is not how the vast majority of humanity moralizes. So you take the most extreme case, hold it up in a ridiculing fashion, and think you've said something. You haven't. Morality is subjective/relative. That makes it opinion-based. I already said yes. Next point?

Or you can just keep coming back to "Technique #2" and pat yourself on the back that you've actually said something. Up to you...

Carp, I know a very large woman who I work with for whom eating and food choices are of utmost importance, above all else. So it is not only possible, it actually happens. But again you reference the vast majority of humanity. But that is a logical fallacy - appealing to the majority. That tells us nothing about whose preferences are more important to whom or why. So appealing to the majority is meaningless.

Sure I do. Such a person has a shallow, adolescent morality. Such a person is rare. It would be the equivalent of my pointing to people who take your "absolute" morality and use it as a basis for torturing homosexuals. After all, according to the OT, they ARE supposed to be killed. But I know that this is an extreme, and rare, position. I would be making a caricature of your belief system. That is not how most Christians believe.

You are absolutely being condescending, that because he puts importance on things you don't, or may not find important what you do, he is shallow! Here is your cue to make an appeal to the majority.

But this is your debate tactic: find the most trivial of preferences, equate it with morality, and then think you've said something. I frankly expected a bit more of a robust position.

There you go again, calling what another man finds very important, trivial. You just can't help yourself, can you?

No - it's a tactic. "Stark relief" is just your euphemism for condescension. So yes, in a subjective/relative moral framework, it is possible for someone to value food more than the life of a child. They will see that as "good" if they do. The situation is likely very rare, but I have not collected data on it, so I cannot "prove" that to you.

And that proves moral relativism/subjectivism is an incorrect worldview exactly how?

What I have shown is that you have a double standard. You accused me a minimizing your preferences while turning around and minimizing the preferences of others.