Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[carpedm9587]

It kinda hamstrings your whole point in using that as an example.

Not sure I see how that is...

That doesn't even make sense.

Which part is confusing you?

[Sparko]

Not sure I see how that is...



Which part is confusing you?

How something relative to God is objective to everyone else. Especially to someone who doesn't believe in objective morality.

[seer]

It's a technique of ridicule that says nothing about "truth." You are essentially arguing that subjective morality cannot be real because someone might value "pizza toppings" over "life." Yes - someone might. That says nothing about the truth of the proposition. It simply says you want to paint the position as "ridiculous" because that might happen. That it might happen says nothing about the truth of the proposition, "morality is subjective." It simply says "I find the possible results silly." That's especially true since that is not what actually does happen. So your objection is duly noted, and your sense of "ridiculous" has been communicated. You just haven't made a rational argument for why subjective/relative morality is not how morality works.

What didn't you understand Carp? I was never trying to disprove subjective morality, even in our first discussion on this. And I was never trying to prove objective morality. My point is and was - what follows from both positions. And I did not say that morality was not "real" just trivial if subjective morality is the case. How could it be otherwise? Your subjective values are important to you. So what? That tells us nothing except that they are important to you. But that fact does not confer importance to your values.

You have declared it "logically trivial," but you have not made that case. At the end of the day, when we set aside the argument from ridicule and the argument from outrage, what we have left is the argument from tautology: subjective morality is trivial because it's not objective.

As I have noted - it's not an argument - it's a tautology.

Oh stop, you have no rational argument for why your worth or what you find worthy has any more significance than the pontificating ant I just stepped on. Every argument you could use to increase your significance, or the worthiness of your values simply comes back to your say so. How is that not trivial? How does your say so confer significance?

[carpedm9587]

How something relative to God is objective to everyone else. Especially to someone who doesn't believe in objective morality.

Umm...I think I have said, more than once, that a god's subjective morality is no different than ours (assuming god exists) except that god (if he/she/it exists) is simply more powerful than the rest of us and, when the process of reconciling differing moralities is engaged, if it progresses to "contend," he/she/it is had to successfully "contend" against the most powerful being in the universe. That doesn't make "god's morality" right because "might" does no determine "right," it merely means god would have the power to reward those who adhere to it and punish those who don't.

In other words, god's morality would be objective to you in exactly the same way that mine is objective to you (and everyone else). It is subjective to god like mine is subjective to me and yours to you.

[Sparko]

Umm...I think I have said, more than once, that a god's subjective morality is no different than ours (assuming god exists) except that god (if he/she/it exists) is simply more powerful than the rest of us and, when the process of reconciling differing moralities is engaged, if it progresses to "contend," he/she/it is had to successfully "contend" against the most powerful being in the universe. That doesn't make "god's morality" right because "might" does no determine "right," it merely means god would have the power to reward those who adhere to it and punish those who don't.

In other words, god's morality would be objective to you in exactly the same way that mine is objective to you (and everyone else). It is subjective to god like mine is subjective to me and yours to you.

God is a perfect being. Perfectly good, omniscient, who actually created us and the universe. So his morals would be perfectly good. The epitome of morality so to speak. So his morals would not be "no different than ours, just more powerful"

[carpedm9587]

What didn't you understand Carp?

I;m pretty sure I understood everything you were saying.

I was never trying to disprove subjective morality, even in our first discussion on this. And I was never trying to prove objective morality. My point is and was - what follows from both positions. And I did not say that morality was not "real" just trivial if subjective morality is the case.

Any subjective morality that does not align with yours will appear "trivial" to you, Seer. If it din't, you would either agree with it or adopt it.

How could it be otherwise? Your subjective values are important to you. So what? That tells us nothing except that they are important to you. But that fact does not confer importance to your values.

It confers importance to me. It is not expected to confer importance to you because it is not your moral framework. You appear to be back to Technique #1.

Oh stop, you have no rational argument for why your worth or what you find worthy has any more significance than the pontificating ant I just stepped on.

I do. I can tell you what I value, why I value it, and what moral code emerges from that valuing. A significant portion is indeed based on reason, which is why a significant portion of humanity arrives at the same basic value/morality structure, and explains why you think there are "moral absolutes."

Every argument you could use to increase your significance, or the worthiness of your values simply comes back to your say so. How is that not trivial? How does your say so confer significance?

Of COURSE it comes back to my says so - it's MY subjective moral framework. Why would you expect otherwise?

It is trivial to YOU because either a) it does not align with yours or b) you have decided that morality is objective and anything else is "trivial."

And my "say" doesn't confer "absolute significance" any more than yours does. It is significant to me. It is significant to those who's moral code aligns. It is insignificant to those whose moral code does not align.

[carpedm9587]

God is a perfect being. Perfectly good, omniscient, who actually created us and the universe. So his morals would be perfectly good.

Most of the definitions of "god" contain self-contradictions, especially in light of the existence of "not good" in this creation of his/her/its. So it does not necessarily follow that this god's moral code is "necessarily good."

The epitome of morality so to speak. So his morals would not be "no different than ours, just more powerful"

On that we disagree.

[Sparko]

Most of the definitions of "god" contain self-contradictions, especially in light of the existence of "not good" in this creation of his/her/its. So it does not necessarily follow that this god's moral code is "necessarily good."

We made it "not good" not God. ...Because we didn't keep his morality
God gave us free will and we abused it. But he also gave us a way back through Jesus. All part of his perfect plan.

On that we disagree.

well you don't believe in God at all so...

But if you want to argue against my and seer's views then you have to accept the premises of those views as we believe them. Otherwise you are just arguing against a strawman.

[carpedm9587]

We made it "not good" not God. ...Because we didn't keep his morality

Right...and round and round we go. Look, Sparko, I understand the whole "god needs to give us free will" argument, but that does not extend itself to knowledge. It does not impose on our free will to make this "moral code" clear and unambiguous. The reality is that there is a HUGE diversity of opinion within christianity about what this moral code actually is. That suggests to me that either this god does not exist and people are just trying to interpret writings of other people, or this supposed all knowing, all powerful being is one of the most inept communicators in the history of humanity.

God gave us free will and we abused it. But he also gave us a way back through Jesus. All part of his perfect plan.

From the outside looking in, Sparko, it is one of the most bizarre "plans" I have ever heard of.

well you don't believe in God at all so...

You are correct - I have indeed come to that conclusion.

But if you want to argue against my and seer's views then you have to accept the premises of those views as we believe them. Otherwise you are just arguing against a strawman.

No. Sorry, but that's not the way it works. When someone disagrees with a conclusion, there are two logical reasons:

1) They reject one or more of the premises being used
2) They reject the conclusions drawn from those premises.

So if someone says to me:

Premise 1: All dogs have four legs
Premise 2: Cats have four legs
Conclusion: Cats are dogs

Then I will argue that their premises are true, but their conclusion is not known to be true because their reasoning is faulty.

But is someone says to me:

Premise 1: All dogs have four legs
Premise 2: German Shepherds have two legs
Conclusion: German Shepherds are not dogs.

This argument is perfectly sound. It is not valid because Premise #2 is untrue. If I am forced to adopt the premises of the person speaking in order to disagree with them, then I would have to conclude that German Shepards are not dogs.

[Psychic Missile]

There is no reason to bring up homsexuality at all. If you have to bring up specific sexual behaviors, like anal, vaginal or oral you can do that without addressing orientation.

I guess you technically don't, but there's no reason to tiptoe around it or treat it as taboo.

Yes I linked it, it includes teaching to teenagers: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/vi...hudson-peconic

The only thing that refers to a lesson plan is that last bullet point, which does not talk about the book/movie or BDSM.

There you go forcing your beliefs on the rest of us! So you don't actually believe in democratic representation, but rather tyranny of the minority!

What is the negative effect of this tyranny of the minority you ascribe to me?

[lilpixieofterror]

Science is never "conclusive," Pixie. It's not a religion. Its a process for weighing evidence and coming to conclusions, until more evidence is available. Right now, the bulk of the evidence is that homosexuality has both a nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) component. That aligns with my experiences, so I accept it as true until I have reason to think otherwise. You, clearly, have come to a different conclusion.

My side? I would think that anyone, seeing a gathering of neo-nazis and self-proclaimed white supremacists, would indeed take a stand against it. I do not advocate for violence, and find the tactics of ANTIFA unacceptable. But to let it pass unremarked...? No...I don't think so.

Since I have said pretty much the same thing in other contexts, we appear to be in agreement on this point. And now we are WAY down a tangent, so I'll leave it at that.

Not really.

Violence is indeed higher in the black community (as a percentage) than the white. Since I have no reason to believe that black people are "inherently more violent," when one goes looking for the actual cause, one finds the actual causal link is not skin color, it's poverty and education. Because the black community, on average, is poorer and has less access to good education, the result is pretty much inevitable. Solve the poverty/education problem, and you not only address the violence problem, you also help all people (regardless of race) that struggle with poverty/education and avoid helping those who (regardless of race) don't need that help.

And that relates to your comments about my experiences or background (which you cannot actually know) exactly how...?

You commented against mine and claimed I had no idea. I do.

I seldom experience "annoyance" on sites such as these. I think you folks are assuming a level of emotional involvement I'm simply not feeling. I can think of a handful of times when I've gotten "emotional" here since returning. Almost all have been when I was tired or stressed about something in my personal life and I found myself reacting to something I saw as "petty" here. Other than moments of tiredness/weakness, these are just discussions to me: exchanges and explorations between strangers. I say what I think and why, and enjoy taking apart ideas and seeing what makes them tick. That's about it.

If you say so.

[Tassman]

Since when is it the responsibility of government schools to teach sex ed in the first place?

It is the responsibility of schools to educate our young. Given that the sex-drive is powerful, especially among the young, the responsible thing to do is provide accurate all-encompassing, non-judgemental education on the subject.

[Tassman]

There is no reason to bring up homsexuality at all. If you have to bring up specific sexual behaviors, like anal, vaginal or oral you can do that without addressing orientation.

The acceptability of homosexuality in our society needs to be addressed given that for too long homosexuals have been persecuted or incarcerated.

There you go forcing your beliefs on the rest of us! So you don't actually believe in democratic representation, but rather tyranny of the minority!

It's the tyranny of the minority that seeks to maintain the marginalisation of homosexuals.

[seer]

I guess you technically don't, but there's no reason to tiptoe around it or treat it as taboo.

Well of course it should be taboo.

The only thing that refers to a lesson plan is that last bullet point, which does not talk about the book/movie or BDSM.

What are you taking about, the whole lesson plan revolves around 50 shades.

What is the negative effect of this tyranny of the minority you ascribe to me?

No, you jumped on me for not supporting "democratic representation." But you don't support "democratic representation" when 72% of parents want an opt out option.

[seer]

It is the responsibility of schools to educate our young. Given that the sex-drive is powerful, especially among the young, the responsible thing to do is provide accurate all-encompassing, non-judgemental education on the subject.

Funny, the western world has been educating its kids for centuries without including sex ed...