So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Sparko]

Actually no, but you didn't answer the assertion. Why?


No, I actually explained to you why. Sound reason!




Wrong. If you were able to follow you would know that I have implied that morals are objective in the sense that they are in the best interests of human beings living together in community. In other words, unlike your notion that morals are the arbitrary, meaningless, laws of a god, my answer is that morals are based on reason.

Your idea of "best interests of society" is what is your objective standard, JimL. the concept of "best" implies a standard to be strived for. You keep making that same mistake in all of your arguments about morality and it keeps being pointed out to you.

[JimL]

Your idea of "best interests of society" is what is your objective standard, JimL. the concept of "best" implies a standard to be strived for. You keep making that same mistake in all of your arguments about morality and it keeps being pointed out to you.

Yeah, that's what I said, i.e. that morals are objective in the sense that they are in the best interests of human being living together in community. That doesn't mean that morals exist as actual laws. You keep making that same mistake even though I keep pointing it out to you.

[Sparko]

Yeah, that's what I said, i.e. that morals are objective in the sense that they are in the best interests of human being living together in community. That doesn't mean that morals exist as actual laws. You keep making that same mistake even though I keep pointing it out to you.

You have no idea what you just admitted.

[Cow Poke]

You have no idea what you just admitted.

This is painful to watch. He actually thinks he has you on the ropes.

[Sparko]

This is painful to watch. He actually thinks he has you on the ropes.

Yeah I know. it's ridiculous. He keeps appealing to what is "best" for society as if there were some objective standard out there that all societies should strive for while at the same time arguing that morals are relative/subjective.

[Tassman]

because there is an objective morality and we generally follow it.

But your objections hold no more weight than complaining that someone likes to wear shorts and you don't think shorts are dignified. It's just your opinion.

You don't seem to understand what objective morality even means. There is only one. Not "my objective morality" and "their objective morality" - there is just one. And I might not get it right all the time, and you might not get it right all the time, but it's there none the less.

So do you think it was actually moral to burn witches back then? It must have been if morals are relative. So since they were acting morally according to their standards, you have no leg to stand on to claim they were wrong for burning witches.

[Tassman]

You have no idea what you just admitted.

It is you and your bovine friend who choose to misunderstand. Morals are a product of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as a cooperative species. They are enforced as fixed rules by a given society but are not absolute objective moral laws as such and can (and do) change over time.

[Cow Poke]

It is you and your bovine friend who choose to misunderstand.

laughing.... you are SO very precious. Like a little wind-up drama queen doll.

[Mountain Man]

The reverse is true. It is you

You obviously have no idea what that verse is talking about. It's not referring to kid who talks back to his parents but who's actions pose a danger to the community. The modern equivalent would be a gangbanger who rob and murder and are generally given the harshest punishments.

[Tassman]

You obviously have no idea what that verse is talking about. It's not referring to kid who talks back to his parents but who's actions pose a danger to the community.

The modern equivalent would be a gangbanger who rob and murder and are generally given the harshest punishments.

[Mountain Man]

You don't even know what it means to rationalize. I'm giving you context, not attempting to explain it away.

Life in prison and execution is essentially the same thing. The point is that we remove people from society who cause harm, which is a biblical ethic.

[Sparko]

so what is wrong with all that? If there is no such thing as objective morality, then any society who did those things was just following their own subjective morality and it was good and right for them. You have nothing to complain about.

[Tassman]

You don't even know what it means to rationalize. I'm giving you context, not attempting to explain it away.

Life in prison and execution is essentially the same thing. The point is that we remove people from society who cause harm, which is a biblical ethic.

[Tassman]

so what is wrong with all that? If there is no such thing as objective morality, then any society who did those things was just following their own subjective morality and it was good and right for them. You have nothing to complain about.

our

[JonathanL]

There is no explaining away needed what so ever. As far as I know Mountain Man is not a Jew subject to Old Covenant obligations. God never demanded that gentiles follow the Law of Moses unless they specifically asked to become part of the covenant between God and the Jewish people.