Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[seer]

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.

No Carp, I would see my own ethical beliefs as trivial if I did not believe they were tried to universal moral truths. And as a matter of fact I did before my conversion. That is not to say that I didn't have an emotional investment in what I believed back then.

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.

Right, so why argue when I suggest that your values are trivial? So basically your ethical system comes down "I know you are, but what am I..."

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."

No, I asked why you have value, any more than the ant I justed squished.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I would see my own ethical beliefs as trivial if I did not believe they were tried to universal moral truths. And as a matter of fact I did before my conversion. That is not to say that I didn't have an emotional investment in what I believed back then.

Go back and reread what I actually wrote, Seer. what I said is that anyone will perceive the morality of another as "trivial" if it does not align with theirs. If they didn't, they would either agree with it, or they would adopt it.

Right, so why argue when I suggest that your values are trivial? So basically your ethical system comes down "I know you are, but what am I..."

Umm... no. That's a very odd parallel. That's a childish name-calling game. Morality is about deriving a code that sorts right action from wrong action. That's not even close.

No, I asked why you have value, any more than the ant I justed squished.

Value requires a valuer, Seer. So before I can answer that, you would have to answer "value to whom?"

[carpedm9587]

There's an introductory article here. If you google "homosexuality and genetics" you'll find many others. The work has been replicated.

As for "conclusive," I am careful with that word with theists. They tend to use it in an absolute sense (i.e., true without possibility of error). When science calls something "conclusive," they tend to mean "true based on existing evidence and experimentation." A good scientist will always hold open the possibility that future evidence will require the "conclusion" to be re-assessed. It has happened many times. That was my point.

We apparently agree here (to some degree), and I have said the same thing in multiple places. However, the opposite of "feeding the trolls" is not "saying nothing." There are many ways for good people to protest evil views without feeding the trolls. One of the more powerful ones I have seen is the silent protest. It was used powerfully in Boston (shortly after Charlottesville). It can be very powerful for speeches as well. Evil must be responded to. But HOW it is responded to is important.

I'm trying to find where I said "throw money at the problem," and I'm not finding it. I DID say, "solve the problem of poverty and lack of education." I did not say how that was to be done because I am not an expert in that area. The purpose of my post was to underscore the need to make the solution focused on the problem - not on the skin color.

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

Ummm...no. I commented that I found your expressed views about racism in the U.S. to be naively dismissive. To my knowledge, I said nothing about your personal experiences. I did note that you seem to be taking your personal experiences and assuming it aligns with what everyone else experiences. IMO, that's a mistake.

If you say so.

I do

[Sparko]

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.

15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

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

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

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.

You are arguing against what WE BELIEVE about God and morality. Yet when you do not acknowledge the basis of that belief as a debatable point, you are merely burning straw. We are saying "Dogs have four legs" and you are arguing that dogs are fish so they don't have legs.

We are arguing that God's nature determines morality. Your argument is that God is nothing more than a super powerful human who's morality is no different than our own and might makes right. That is not what we believe. No Christian believes that. Your description of God is a strawman, nobody believes that not even you (you don't even believe in God) so your argument against a super powered human-like God with subjective morality is just smoke and mirrors. You might as well be arguing against Thor rather than Yahweh.

[carpedm9587]

We all have a conscience. We actively suppress it in order to get away with sin, then rationalize it was OK. When it comes down to it, unless you are insane, you know right from wrong at a basic level. And when you face God, you will answer for it.

So, I have no problem with sex outside of the context of marriage, in general. There are things that can make it wrong, but the lack of a marriage relationship is not one of them. I get no pangs of conscience about advocating that position, and I lived it before I was married with no pangs of conscience. So, from your perspective, because you (I presume) believe such a thing is immoral, I am merely "suppressing" these pangs? Apparently I am doing so unconsciously? There is no possible response to such an assertion. If that's what you think...

As for god, well, I guess we'll see.

15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

As I have noted on multiple occasions, I don't do biblical quotes. In my experience, selective farming and interpretation can result in almost any position being defensible. I find it to be a fool's debate.

You are arguing against what WE BELIEVE about God and morality. Yet when you do not acknowledge the basis of that belief as a debatable point, you are merely burning straw. We are saying "Dogs have four legs" and you are arguing that dogs are fish so they don't have legs.

This makes no sense to me, so I have no response.

We are arguing that God's nature determines morality. Your argument is that God is nothing more than a super powerful human who's morality is no different than our own and might makes right. That is not what we believe. No Christian believes that. Your description of God is a strawman, nobody believes that not even you (you don't even believe in God) so your argument against a super powered human-like God with subjective morality is just smoke and mirrors. You might as well be arguing against Thor rather than Yahweh.

The expression "god's nature determines morality" has no meaning to me, Sparko. I can see no mechanism for getting from "god's nature" to "homosexuality is a sin." And I don't have a "description of a god," because I do not believe any of the gods described by humanity exist in reality. Most descriptions of god describe a being that is sentient, so god would derive a moral code on the basis of what god values, as do we all. How/why god values these things is not within my purview to explain, and is really not relevant.

As for Thor versus Yahweh, it's an interesting comparison. For many centuries (millennia?), Thor was considered a "real" god - part of the Norse pantheon/polytheism. From my perspective, while there are descriptive differences, they both share the attribute of "mythology." The primary difference is that the Norse mythology is largely rejected at this point (well, still present in Iceland, apparently). There is still widespread belief in Yahweh, Allah, Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva, and the other gods of the major world religions.

[seer]

Go back and reread what I actually wrote, Seer. what I said is that anyone will perceive the morality of another as "trivial" if it does not align with theirs. If they didn't, they would either agree with it, or they would adopt it.

Umm... no. That's a very odd parallel. That's a childish name-calling game. Morality is about deriving a code that sorts right action from wrong action. That's not even close.

Then why did you get all hissy when I did suggest that what you valued was trivial? You basically accused me of minimizing your "cherished values."

Value requires a valuer, Seer. So before I can answer that, you would have to answer "value to whom?"

So human value is relative?

[carpedm9587]

Then why did you get all hissy when I did suggest that what you valued was trivial?

Hissy? Seer, you're reading a lot more emotion into my posts than I put there.

You basically accused me of minimizing your "cherished values."

Ummm...no. I pointed out that an argument "from ridicule" is not an argument. Your basic argument, Seer, is that, in a subjective/relative moral framework, no one person's valuing/moralizing can be shown to be more "important" or "significant" than anyone else's. This is a true statement in absolute/objective terms - which is just another way of saying "subjective/relative morality is not objective/absolute." (Technique #1). You could make that point by noting that one person could value life above liberty and another value liberty above life. But you almost never do that. Instead you take a "value" most would consider trivial and compare it to one most consider to be significant. It's the same argument, but you always select a trivial thing to compare with as a way of minimizing/ridiculing the position.

My point is that this Technique #2 adds nothing to your argument. It's just a debate tactic. I'm not offended by it in the least. I'm simply pointing out "you're not adding anything to your argument," by using this tactic.

So human value is relative?

Valuing requires a valuer. Most people value "human life" because they value their own life. There are always those who do not value human life, though they usually (inconsistently) value their own. But to directly answer your question: yes, human life is not equally valued by all people. It is relative to the valuer.

[seer]

Ummm...no. I pointed out that an argument "from ridicule" is not an argument. Your basic argument, Seer, is that, in a subjective/relative moral framework, no one person's valuing/moralizing can be shown to be more "important" or "significant" than anyone else's. This is a true statement in absolute/objective terms - which is just another way of saying "subjective/relative morality is not objective/absolute." (Technique #1). You could make that point by noting that one person could value life above liberty and another value liberty above life. But you almost never do that. Instead you take a "value" most would consider trivial and compare it to one most consider to be significant. It's the same argument, but you always select a trivial thing to compare with as a way of minimizing/ridiculing the position.

But is does not matter what one values or his hierarchy of values, or if he values food or fashion over things you find most important. Your choices would still look trivial to him, or his to yours. The trivial part never changes in your subjective world. Just as what is minimized or not. So me using what "most would consider trivial" is meaningless to your argument or defence, because it is TRUE, if you are correct.

Valuing requires a valuer. Most people value "human life" because they value their own life. There are always those who do not value human life, though they usually (inconsistently) value their own. But to directly answer your question: yes, human life is not equally valued by all people. It is relative to the valuer.

Right, in your world humans have no inherent value or worth. Got it...

[carpedm9587]

But is does not matter what one values or his hierarchy of values, or if he values food or fashion over things you find most important. Your choices would still look trivial to him, or his to yours. The trivial part never changes in your subjective world.

It does not change from an "objective" view point, but that just means you're back to Technique #1 (again)

Just as what is minimized or not. So me using what "most would consider trivial" is meaningless to your argument or defence, because it is TRUE, if you are correct.

My point is not intended to argue/defend anything, except to point out (again) that you do not have an argument - merely debate tactics. Pointing out that you LACK an argument against moral subjectivity/relativity is not the same as making an argument FOR moral subjectivity/relativity.

Right, in your world humans have no inherent value or worth. Got it...

Indeed, "inherent" makes no sense, because value is assigned by a valuer, so it will be based on the relationship between the valuer and the thing valued. We can observe that most of humanity values life - which seems a predictable reality given that valuing ANYTHING first depends on our having life. It is also why most of humanity values life above pretty much everything else. The social contract (golden rule, etc.) is what then leads us to value other lives as well as or own.

[seer]

My point is not intended to argue/defend anything, except to point out (again) that you do not have an argument - merely debate tactics. Pointing out that you LACK an argument against moral subjectivity/relativity is not the same as making an argument FOR moral subjectivity/relativity.

How can it merely be a tactic when it is true? And again, my whole purpose was not to disprove moral relativism, but to clearly delineate the ramifications of this moral theory. And somehow it is OK in your mind for me to see your values as trivial but it is not OK for me to use trivial examples like food or fashion in the discussion. Go figure...

Indeed, "inherent" makes no sense, because value is assigned by a valuer, so it will be based on the relationship between the valuer and the thing valued. We can observe that most of humanity values life - which seems a predictable reality given that valuing ANYTHING first depends on our having life. It is also why most of humanity values life above pretty much everything else. The social contract (golden rule, etc.) is what then leads us to value other lives as well as or own.

Right so you don't believe that humans have any more inherent worth than a common housefly. I get it.

[carpedm9587]

How can it merely be a tactic when it is true?

If I say "changes in the elevation of the ocean are no different than changes in elevation of the puddle in my backyard; they're both water," I am likewise making a "true statement." Both are water, both can experience elevation changes. In the process, I am ignoring and minimizing the impacts of the changes in ocean level versus the impacts of the changes in puddle level. That is essentially the tactic you are using. It provides no value to your argument.

And again, my whole purpose was not to disprove moral relativism, but to clearly delineate the ramifications of this moral theory. And somehow it is OK in your mind for me to see your values as trivial but it is not OK for me to use trivial examples like food or fashion in the discussion. Go figure...

I said nothing about it "not being OK." Do what you wish. I'm merely pointing out it adds nothing to your argument. It is merely a debate tactic.

Right so you don't believe that humans have any more inherent worth than a common housefly. I get it.

Nothing has inherent worth, so comparing the "inherent worth" of a human and the "inherent worth" of a housefly is the equivalent of comparing the "ephemeral essence" of a human versus the "ephemeral essence" of a housefly. The terms are essentially meaningless. Worth/value are measured by a valuer. So a human has more "worth" or "value" to me than a housefly because of their respective relationships to my life. Nature or the universe doesn't have "inherent worth." To the universe, a housefly, a rock, or a human are equivalent - just different organizations of matter. Humans infer worth based on what we value. Most humans value other humans above rocks and houseflies. It is only human arrogance that thinks somehow this value is "inherent" to humanity itself. That is probably why we place "things that benefit us" over and above any concern about any other life or the planet itself.

[Psychic Missile]

Well of course it should be taboo.

Not in terms of civil rights, democracy, evidence, or outcome. No matter how strong your preference is, there are greater forces against you.

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

The flyer is for a training workshop for adults. The only mention of a lesson plan is that last bullet point.

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.

I "jumped on you" for that because you were simultaneously arguing that your preference should take precedence over what people want and that your opinion should matter because of the democratic process. As for me, I don't see opting your child out of sex ed as any different from refusing to get your child vaccinated. In both cases the parent is making a decision that negatively affects their child's medical well-being without their child's informed consent.

[seer]

Not in terms of civil rights, democracy, evidence, or outcome. No matter how strong your preference is, there are greater forces against you.

Well presently the majority of the culture does not believe as I do, but for most of our history, until recently, it did. And who knows what tomorrow will bring.

The flyer is for a training workshop for adults. The only mention of a lesson plan is that last bullet point.

No, it is for teenagers too, as the flyer states.

I "jumped on you" for that because you were simultaneously arguing that your preference should take precedence over what people want and that your opinion should matter because of the democratic process. As for me, I don't see opting your child out of sex ed as any different from refusing to get your child vaccinated. In both cases the parent is making a decision that negatively affects their child's medical well-being without their child's informed consent.

I don't care what you think. And you again used the democratic process above to support your position. But when 72% of parents think they should be able to opt out you disregard their views. And BTW - neither you or government schools love those kids or know them better than the parents. This why people like you are wicked, control freaks.

[Tassman]

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

With dire consequences in many instances with unwanted pregnancies and suicides among homosexuals.

[seer]

With dire consequences in many instances with unwanted pregnancies and suicides among homosexuals.

Nonsense. Do we have more out of wedlock births today than we did in the bad old 50s and 60s? More abortions? Did we have more unwanted pregnancies back then? More gay suicides back then?