Take Back Our Country

[carpedm9587]

But my truck example is very plausible.

No your claim to superiority is what is delusional and without rational justification. That you believe that gay rights is more important than the importance that Joe six pack puts on the color of his new truck. It isn't.

Again - a variation on Debate Technique #1, with a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be relative.

Object X and Object Y are in motion, and moving apart relative to one another at 10 MPH.
Observer A sees Object X and Object Y and claims "Object X is moving at 50 MPH and Object Y is moving at 60 MPH.
Observer B sees Object X and Object Y and claims "Object X is moving at 5 MPH and Object Y is moving in the opposite direction at 5 MPH.

Both observers are right, and neither is delusional. This is because speed is relative and Observer's A and B are each assessing speed from their own framework. No one can say anything about the absolute speed of Objects X and Y because the concept of "absolute/objective" speed does not exist. Speed is always measured in relation to something.

Man X and Man Y are discussing the morality of homosexual intimacy; Man X believes it is moral; Man Y believes it is immoral.
Observer A sees Man X and Man Y and claims "Man X has the superior moral claim to Man Y.
Observer B sees Man X and Man Y and claims "Man Y has the superior moral claim to Man X.

Both observers are right, and neither is delusional. This is because morality is relative and Observer's A and B are each assessing Man X and Man Y from their own moral framework. Observer A shares a common moral framework with Man X; and Observer B shares a common moral framework with Man Y. No one can say anything about the "absolute" superiority of any moral claim, because the concept of an absolute moral framework does not exist. Morality is always measured in relation to someone's moral framework.

No delusion - no problem - morality, like speed, is relative/subjective.

[Sparko]

No - it is the very definition of what it means to be "relative."



This very concept is meaningless in a relative worldview.



Which makes this question impossible to answer. It is not impossible to answer because we cannot "figure out the answer," it is impossible to answer because the question itself is meaningless. It is the equivalent of asking, "what color is three?"



By definition, that is true.



Entirely possible.



They are - to me.



That is possible, but unlikely. As has been noted before, most of us share significant moral overlap with our fellow humans.



It is not "objectively/absolutely" better because that concept is meaningless. It is relatively/subjectively better.



I am right - and you are wrong - to me. If I can successfully convince you that my view is a better view for you as well, then you will immediately adopt it. If I cannot, then ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.



Correct.



There is no absolute basis for this type of comparison - if one view cannot be declared "superior" there is also no basis for declaring them "equally valid."



I have acted as if I believe my moral framework is superior - which I believe it is or I would not have it.



People do not moralize about colors.



May be meaningless to others. Because we have so many moral bases in common, and we tend to value the same thing, we will tend to have reasonably aligned moral viewpoints. Those can be leveraged for a discussion.



You are free to ignore anything I may say, Sparko. No one is forcing you to read or respond. I am not likely to continue discussing morality simply because you want me to.

Let's see, which Dodge was this again? Where you chop up a post so much that the other person can't make a coherent reply?

This is usually one of the last ones you use before the "I will let you have the last word, I am outta here" dodge. Means I am right and you don't want to admit it.

Basically above, despite all of your protestations, you just admitted your opinions matter to no one but yourself. Your morals only matter to yourself. Yet you have spent hundreds of posts here on Tweb trying to convince other people that you are right and we should listen to your morals. Why? Why do you care?

more importantly, why should be listen to you?

Your values are no more important or right than anyone elses are they?

[carpedm9587]

Let's see, which Dodge was this again? Where you chop up a post so much that the other person can't make a coherent reply?

This is usually one of the last ones you use before the "I will let you have the last word, I am outta here" dodge. Means I am right and you don't want to admit it.

Basically above, despite all of your protestations, you just admitted your opinions matter to no one but yourself.

No.

Your morals only matter to yourself. Yet you have spent hundreds of posts here on Tweb trying to convince other people that you are right and we should listen to your morals. Why? Why do you care?

Because, of course, I measure all actions by my moral framework - which means I believe society will be better if we are all acting according to that framework. If I didn't think so, I would have a different framework. Much of that framework aligns with the rest of society. Much of it aligns with much of Christianity. Where it does not, I work to promote it. I have worked to promote gay rights for years. Now, the work of people like me is bearing fruit. We all seek to push society in the direction we believe it should go. You and people like you do not different.

more importantly, why should be listen to you?

Presumably because reasonably intelligent people may have a valid point of view to offer - and insights that should/could be considered. Frankly, Sparko, I have long since accepted that you, Seer, CP, MM, and many others here are not going to be swayed by any argument I might make. You are locked into your religious perspective and it is unlikely to be swayed. Mostly, I hope some of these threads will be read by others more open to the arguments. So I stick with it. I think Jesus had a parable about "sowing seed." You never know what will come of it.

Your values are no more important or right than anyone elses are they?

In a relative framework, until you specify the reference frame, such questions have no meaning - so they have no answer.

[Mountain Man]

Let's see, which Dodge was this again? Where you chop up a post so much that the other person can't make a coherent reply?

This is usually one of the last ones you use before the "I will let you have the last word, I am outta here" dodge. Means I am right and you don't want to admit it.

Basically above, despite all of your protestations, you just admitted your opinions matter to no one but yourself. Your morals only matter to yourself. Yet you have spent hundreds of posts here on Tweb trying to convince other people that you are right and we should listen to your morals. Why? Why do you care?

more importantly, why should be listen to you?

Your values are no more important or right than anyone elses are they?

Atheists insist that it would be immoral for God to judge someone for being "honestly mistaken" about God's existence, so they have no business judging the pedophile or psychopath for being "honestly mistaken".

[Tassman]

Atheists insist that it would be immoral for God to judge someone for being "honestly mistaken" about God's existence,

It's not an issue that is ever likely to arise, seeing as there is no god.

so they have no business judging the pedophile or psychopath for being "honestly mistaken".

Society has a right to protect itself against pedophiles, psychopaths and anyone else who disrupts social cohesion.

[carpedm9587]

Atheists insist that it would be immoral for God to judge someone for being "honestly mistaken" about God's existence, so they have no business judging the pedophile or psychopath for being "honestly mistaken".

An atheist taking a position on the morality of a god they believe does not exist is odd indeed.

Are you sure you're talking to actual atheists...?

[Sparko]

No.

Yes:

Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
The point is, you keep arguing as if your values are more important than seer's or mine are.

They are - to me.

They matter only to you. Not to me or anyone else. IF my morals are just my relative preferences, then only my morals matter to me. Not yours, not Seer's. What anyone else thinks only matters in whether they agree or disagree with me. Doesn't make them or me right. It is no different than people who agree with me that chocolate tastes better or disagree.

Because, of course, I measure all actions by my moral framework - which means I believe society will be better if we are all acting according to that framework. If I didn't think so, I would have a different framework. Much of that framework aligns with the rest of society. Much of it aligns with much of Christianity. Where it does not, I work to promote it. I have worked to promote gay rights for years. Now, the work of people like me is bearing fruit. We all seek to push society in the direction we believe it should go. You and people like you do not different.

I said the same above. It only matters in so far as other people agree with you. It makes it easier to promote your agenda. But there is no "right" or "wrong" to it. You believing that rape is immoral is no actual difference than you thinking that democrats are better than republicans. If you get enough people on your side to agree then rape is "immoral". But if nobody agrees with you then rape becomes "moral" in that society, right?

There is nothing actually "wrong" or "evil" about rape. It only matters what you think about it and if you can convince enough people to agree with you. So despite what you said earlier, you do believe in "might makes right"

[carpedm9587]

Yes:

They matter only to you. Not to me or anyone else. IF my morals are just my relative preferences, then only my morals matter to me. Not yours, not Seer's. What anyone else thinks only matters in whether they agree or disagree with me. Doesn't make them or me right. It is no different than people who agree with me that chocolate tastes better or disagree.

Then you have sealed yourself into your moral echo chamber and conversation is pointless. I appreciate you letting me know.

I said the same above. It only matters in so far as other people agree with you. It makes it easier to promote your agenda. But there is no "right" or "wrong" to it. You believing that rape is immoral is no actual difference than you thinking that democrats are better than republicans. If you get enough people on your side to agree then rape is "immoral". But if nobody agrees with you then rape becomes "moral" in that society, right?

If the majority of people in a given society suddenly defined "rape" as moral, then that society can be accurately said to see "rape as moral." So we would say, "in the framework of Society X, rape is perceived as moral." Such societies have existed in the past, and may well exist in the future.

There is nothing actually "wrong" or "evil" about rape. It only matters what you think about it and if you can convince enough people to agree with you. So despite what you said earlier, you do believe in "might makes right"

Technique #1: you left out "objective/absolute" from your statement, but that appears to be what you meant by "actually." There actually IS something immoral/wrong about rape, in my moral framework, as well as the moral frameworks of most humans and most societies. There is nothing "objectively/absolutely" wrong/evil because that concept is meaningless. Just as we cannot say anything about the absolute speed of an object, because the very concept is meaningless; likewise we cannot say anything about the absolute morality of an act because the concept does not exist.

[seer]

There actually IS something immoral/wrong about rape, in my moral framework, as well as the moral frameworks of most humans and most societies. There is nothing "objectively/absolutely" wrong/evil because that concept is meaningless. Just as we cannot say anything about the absolute speed of an object, because the very concept is meaningless; likewise we cannot say anything about the absolute morality of an act because the concept does not exist.

No Carp, that doesn't make rape actually wrong, and if a culture accepts wife rape for instance (which many still do) that is right. You have no ground, apart from personal preference, to argue otherwise. So we are back to personal preference. BTW - relative speeds do NOT depend on personal preferences. Apples and oranges again.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, that doesn't make rape actually wrong, and if a culture accepts wife rape for instance (which many still do) that is right.

You still do not get it, Seer. The term "actually," as you are using it to mean "absolutely/objectively" is meaningless. It's like saying, "that car isn't actually going 60 MPH." The very statement is meaningless, with respect to speed, until someone answers the question, "with respect to what?" An object does not have an absolute speed. It only has a relative speed. An doesn't have an absolute moral quality - only a relative one.

You have no ground, apart from personal preference, to argue otherwise. So we are back to personal preference. BTW - relative speeds do NOT depend on personal preferences. Apples and oranges again.

Relative speeds can be objectively measured - and relative morality can be objectively measured. Tell me what reference frame we are using to measure the speed of an object, and we can then measure the speed. Without the reference frame, we can do nothing. Tell me what reference frame we are using to assess the morality of an act, and we can now assess the morality of the act. Without the reference frame, we can do nothing.

I know you want it to be apples and oranges, Seer, but it's not.

[seer]

Relative speeds can be objectively measured - and relative morality can be objectively measured. Tell me what reference frame we are using to measure the speed of an object, and we can then measure the speed. Without the reference frame, we can do nothing. Tell me what reference frame we are using to assess the morality of an act, and we can now assess the morality of the act. Without the reference frame, we can do nothing.

I know you want it to be apples and oranges, Seer, but it's not.

Actually they aren't. You can objectively know a relative speed, you can never objectively know what is moral or not. Moral frame of references are meaningless since there is no objective way to determine if they are right to begin with. If you are in a frame of reference for time, that is an objective frame, though relative, so you can measure an objective speed.

[Cow Poke]

I know you want it to be apples and oranges...

You outta start a fruit stand!

[seer]

You outta start a fruit stand!

You shouldn't call Carp a fruit - that was just uncalled for!

[Cow Poke]

You shouldn't call Carp a fruit - that was just uncalled for!

So, this guy is standing on a bridge over a fish pond feeding the fish with the pellets available at the little dispenser.

He gets out his wallet to get a dollar to go buy some more fish food, but he drops the wallet into the water. Miraculously, a fish actually catches the wallet before it sinks into the water, and begins to swim away with it. Another fish comes and grabs the wallet, then another grabs it from him, and another.....

It was a case of carp-to-carp walleting.

[seer]

It was a case of carp-to-carp walleting.