Homophobic Trump...

[seer]

Making a reasoned decision is better than making an unreasoned one. Feel free to argue otherwise. It's a patently absurd position - not to mention self-refuting since you will have to use reason to make it. But then again, not to put too fine a point on it, you haven't been applying a great deal of reason to THIS discussion, so perhaps you actually think this.

No, I'm making a very reasoned argument as to why making a deductive case for your preference for pizza is no more valid than your instinctive preference for pizza. What logically does your deductive case tell us that your instinctive taste doesn't when it comes to your preference for pizza? Be specific please...

[carpedm9587]

I will try one more time then I am done...

No we are saying when the end decision is just a subjective value then it doesn't matter.

So look at these two (implied statements). First "no" implying that is your response to my question/observation:

1) Is it objectively better to apply reasoning when making decisions or not? I say it is - you say it apparently is not.

So I take your "no" to apply to the last sentence. I suggested that you were saying "it is is NOT objectively better to apply reasoning when arriving at a decision that to forego reasoning." You said "no." This suggests you actually think it is better to apply reasoning when when making a decision.

Then your very next sentence carves out an exception: when the decision is subjective. But choosing a car is subjective. Picking a wife is subjective. Choosing a house is subjective. Naming your child is subjective. Picking out a piece of art for your home is subjective. Your life is FULL of subjective decisions and I am fairly sure that (in practice) you actually apply a little reasoning to the decisions. I doubt you flipped a coin to choose a house, name your child, decide to propose to your wife, or any other of a legion of decisions you have made throughout your life. Yet here you are arguing that it makes no difference, because the decision relates to something subjective.

And you think this makes sense?

Because even if it is a "better" reason, the end result is still the subjective value. In other words it doesn't matter in the end because someone could have the same subjective value with a bad argument. And since the subjective value is subjective, it only matters to the person who holds it.

OK. Cool. Then, to demonstrate that you actually live this philosophy consistently throughout your life, you will need to assure me that every subjective decision you have made throughout your life has been done with a coin flip or a roll of the dice. After all - it's subjective - so the outcome doesn't matter, right? This is your argument, right?

I like chocolate. You like vanilla. I decided I like chocolate because it makes me feel good. You like vanilla because it can be proven that vanilla is better for your health. Now reverse that. I have a good objective argument of why chocolate is better and you decide you like vanilla because you stepped on an ant. Does it really matter what argument you used to come to your subjective decision? No. Because in the end it doesn't matter to anyone but yourself. You can justify your preference anyway you want to.

Wait - wait - you just applied reasoning. When you choose ice cream, you should have a multi-sided die (one side for each flavor) and just roll it. After all, what you prefer is irrelevant. What is perceived as healthy is irrelevant. None of that should factor into your decision making. If you are consistent - every subjective decision you make should be unencumbered by the thought process - because the outcome makes no difference - it's subjective.

Are you SURE you really want to continue to make this argument? And are you willing to actually live that way. I suggest you are not. I think you actually apply reasoning to your subjective decision-making process - because you know that even subjective decisions are more likely to be better decisions if they are reasoned ones.

If the end value is an objective value then of course the argument matters because it would affect everyone even if they didn't like it.

If I can objectively prove that the earth is round, then it is actually round even if you are a flat-earther and disagree. It matters. But if it is about a subjective moral value then it doesn't matter.

OK, Sparko. From this point forward - when the conclusion is about an objective reality, apply reason. When it is about a subjective outcome - use a coin or a die. Report back to me in a month or so and tell me how that is going for you.

Your argument fails on your obvious failure to actually live this way, Sparko. You and I both know that a reasoned conclusion, for both subjective and objective conclusions, is generally more likely to produce a better outcome for the subject making the decision. Not only that, but it gives us a means for "presenting our case" to a loved one, a community, or even a nation and discussion the relative merits of the options. THAT is what makes the process superior.

But if you and Seer want to keep arguing "irrationality or non-rationality is just as good as rationality when making subjective decisions," then the next time you go to buy a car and your spouse (assuming you have one) has a list of reasons for why she (assuming your heterosexual) wants to buy Vehicle X," look her right in the eye and say, "this is a subjective decision, so reasons and rationality are irrelevant. Let's flip this coin."

[carpedm9587]

No, I'm making a very reasoned argument as to why making a deductive case for your preference for pizza is no more valid than your instinctive preference for pizza.

Which is a ridiculous argument to make since I have never once claimed that deduction has anything to do with my love of pizza.

What logically does your deductive case tell us that your instinctive taste doesn't when it comes to your preference for pizza? Be specific please...

I have never said or claimed that my love of pizza is logically arrived at, so I see no reason to try to make this case. It has nothing to do with anything I've said. "Liking pizza" is not something I chose or choose. It is simply a "trivial" value of mine that I happen to have - because of my experience of pizza. It is a fact about me: I like pizza. In the decision making process, it is a premise - not a conclusion.

The conclusions would be driven by that love - like where I choose to eat, or what I choose to buy at the store, etc. There deduction applies. But since food choice is subjective, according to Sparko (and presumably you) when we go into the grocery store, we should just randomly grab food - because reason tells us nothing about what to buy and it makes no difference - the context is a subjective preference.

I think we both know you don't actually live that way.

[seer]

More "green is not blue" - see my previous responses.

I have never said or claimed that my love of pizza is logically arrived at, so I see no reason to try to make this case. It has nothing to do with anything I've said. "Liking pizza" is not something I chose or choose. It is simply a "trivial" value of mine that I happen to have - because of my experience of pizza. It is a fact about me: I like pizza. In the decision making process, it is a premise - not a conclusion.

In the past Carp, you made a case for liking pizza, or buying pizza. But that is not the point, you could use any preference, or any conclusion. Because all your conclusions were based on self chosen premises. Again self-serving premises leading to the conclusion you desire. In the end your conclusions are preferences, you just invented a process to justify them so you can call it reason.

1. I like the taste of tomato sauce, cheese, and bread dough.

2. Pizza can include tomato sauce, cheese, and bread dough.

3. Therefore I should like pizza.

That is all you are doing Carp, you are merely expressing a personal preference in long form. I actually liked pizza before I made the argument, just as you already held your conclusions before you ever made a deductive argument. Again you are just making post hoc arguments. So making a deductive argument showing my preference pizza adds nothing to the fact that I like pizza.

[Sparko]

So look at these two (implied statements). First "no" implying that is your response to my question/observation:

1) Is it objectively better to apply reasoning when making decisions or not? I say it is - you say it apparently is not.

So I take your "no" to apply to the last sentence. I suggested that you were saying "it is is NOT objectively better to apply reasoning when arriving at a decision that to forego reasoning." You said "no." This suggests you actually think it is better to apply reasoning when when making a decision.

Then your very next sentence carves out an exception: when the decision is subjective. But choosing a car is subjective. Picking a wife is subjective. Choosing a house is subjective. Naming your child is subjective. Picking out a piece of art for your home is subjective. Your life is FULL of subjective decisions and I am fairly sure that (in practice) you actually apply a little reasoning to the decisions. I doubt you flipped a coin to choose a house, name your child, decide to propose to your wife, or any other of a legion of decisions you have made throughout your life. Yet here you are arguing that it makes no difference, because the decision relates to something subjective.

And you think this makes sense?

your life is also full of subjective decisions that you don't apply a logical argument to obtain. Did you design a logical argument to choose your wife? Or did you just fall in love with her? And if you did use math and spreadsheets to choose your wife was that a better method than falling in love with her? And did either method mean anything to me or Seer? Would the fact that you flipped a coin to choose your wife have any effect on me? To me, does the method you use to choose your wife have any significance? Or name your child? If you flipped a coin to name your child would it be any worse than if you created logical argument for his name? If you named your son, Mike and you did it because you wanted to name him after yourself, or you named him Mike because you chose his name from the bible, or you chose the name because you liked the sound of it, does it make any difference? His name is still Mike. And to me, I don't really care how you came to his name. So no, for a subjective value it doesn't really matter how you came about the decision.

OK. Cool. Then, to demonstrate that you actually live this philosophy consistently throughout your life, you will need to assure me that every subjective decision you have made throughout your life has been done with a coin flip or a roll of the dice. After all - it's subjective - so the outcome doesn't matter, right? This is your argument, right?

It was an example, carp. See above.

Wait - wait - you just applied reasoning. When you choose ice cream, you should have a multi-sided die (one side for each flavor) and just roll it. After all, what you prefer is irrelevant. What is perceived as healthy is irrelevant. None of that should factor into your decision making. If you are consistent - every subjective decision you make should be unencumbered by the thought process - because the outcome makes no difference - it's subjective.

Are you SURE you really want to continue to make this argument? And are you willing to actually live that way. I suggest you are not. I think you actually apply reasoning to your subjective decision-making process - because you know that even subjective decisions are more likely to be better decisions if they are reasoned ones.



OK, Sparko. From this point forward - when the conclusion is about an objective reality, apply reason. When it is about a subjective outcome - use a coin or a die. Report back to me in a month or so and tell me how that is going for you.

Your argument fails on your obvious failure to actually live this way, Sparko. You and I both know that a reasoned conclusion, for both subjective and objective conclusions, is generally more likely to produce a better outcome for the subject making the decision. Not only that, but it gives us a means for "presenting our case" to a loved one, a community, or even a nation and discussion the relative merits of the options. THAT is what makes the process superior.

But if you and Seer want to keep arguing "irrationality or non-rationality is just as good as rationality when making subjective decisions," then the next time you go to buy a car and your spouse (assuming you have one) has a list of reasons for why she (assuming your heterosexual) wants to buy Vehicle X," look her right in the eye and say, "this is a subjective decision, so reasons and rationality are irrelevant. Let's flip this coin."

Your idiotic mockery is ignored.

[carpedm9587]

In the past Carp, you made a case for liking pizza,

No. Not a rational one. Liking pizza is a fact about Michel - not something I reason to.

or buying pizza.

Buying pizza is a decision - and it is (in part) driven by the liking part.

But that is not the point, you could use any preference, or any conclusion. Because all your conclusions were based on self chosen premises.

Yes - they are. So what?

Again self-serving premises leading to the conclusion you desire. In the end your conclusions are preferences, you just invented a process to justify them so you can call it reason.

No - I reason from what I value/like/prefer to the actions that I make as a result. It's a pretty common process. Even you do it.

1. I like the taste of tomato sauce, cheese, and bread dough.

2. Pizza can include tomato sauce, cheese, and bread dough.

3. Therefore I should like pizza.

No...it would look more like this:

1. I like the taste of tomato sauce, cheese, and bread dough.
2. Pizza can include tomato sauce, cheese, and bread dough.
3. Therefore, it is very likely I will like a pizza (or perhaps "I should make a pizza").

I cannot "conclude" what I like. I like it or I don't like it. There is a good chance I will like a pizza because it contains three ingredients I like. On the other hand, it is not a guarantee. I could put the same three ingredients into a blender and then poor it into a cup and I probably would no longer like it.

That is all you are doing Carp, you are merely expressing a personal preference in long form. I actually liked pizza before I made the argument, just as you already held your conclusions before you ever made a deductive argument. Again you are just making post hoc arguments. So making a deductive argument showing my preference pizza adds nothing to the fact that I like pizza.

No - you are inventing arguments I have never made. And, meanwhile, you are defending a position you do not live by. If you think you do, then I suggest the same thing to you that I suggested to Sparko: for the next month, make every subjective decision by flipping a coin and apply NO reasoning. After all - it's not an objectively better process - and the outcome doesn't matter - it's subjective.

Somehow - I doubt you are going to actually do that...

[carpedm9587]

your life is also full of subjective decisions that you don't apply a logical argument to obtain. Did you design a logical argument to choose your wife?

Absolutely. I loved (and love) her. But I gave a great deal of thought to the proposal based on whether or not I felt financially stable enough, whether or not I wanted to lock myself into an entire life with some of her foibles, whether or not I was ready to give up my bachelor freedom. She had to make a reasoned decision as well based on my inability to father children, my living situation, and so on. The decision was absolutely a reasoned one - and the fact that I love her was part of the decision. I certainly did not "flip a coin."

Or did you just fall in love with her?

I have fallen in love with about 12 women in my life. I only proposed to two. "Falling in love" and "proposing" are not synonymous. Falling in love is a fact of life. Proposing is a decision to act. You are comparing apples and oranges. Or, to use an expression you guys seem to like - you just moved the goalposts.

And if you did use math and spreadsheets to choose your wife was that a better method than falling in love with her?

Again - it's not about math - and you shifted the goal posts mid argument - from "asking to marry" (a decision) to "falling in love" (a fact about me).

And did either method mean anything to me or Seer?

Absolutely not - but then I never suggested it did.

Would the fact that you flipped a coin to choose your wife have any effect on me?

Nope - I never suggested it would.

To me, does the method you use to choose your wife have any significance?

Nope - I never suggested it would.

Or name your child?

Nope - I never suggested it would.

If you flipped a coin to name your child would it be any worse than if you created logical argument for his name?

Yes. It would. You see, randomness can produce all sorts of things I cannot protect myself against. Like Mr. Rhea naming their daughter Diane Annabelle Rhea. How long do you think it would be before the kids at school pick up on "Di A. Rhea?" If there are already 12 "Michaels" in my family, yet another Michael is a formula for confusion. Each first child in my wife's family is named after a parent (her eldest brother is Joseph - her father's name, and she is Theresa, her mother's name). SOme studies suggest this is a formula for increased probability of depression. Considering the psychological impact on a child of being named after a parent can and should (IMO) factor in. Most parents give significant thought to what they want to name their child and why. I don't know a single person who flipped a coin or rolled a die.

If you named your son, Mike and you did it because you wanted to name him after yourself, or you named him Mike because you chose his name from the bible, or you chose the name because you liked the sound of it, does it make any difference?

Yep. In many possible ways - see above.

His name is still Mike. And to me, I don't really care how you came to his name.

It doesn't have to matter to you. No one said it did. The point is, if someone has done research and determined there is a significant negative impact to naming children after oneself, or that odd names reduce the probability of gaining good employment - the person who "just flips a coin" will be impervious to ANY of that information. There is no way to discuss the issue - which is the point I have been making all along: if we want to be able to influence one another, decisions need to be based on reasons we can discuss. If they are not - so be it - but then there is no possibility of dialogue about the issues.

When the issues have the potential to actually affect others - that makes the reasoned approach superior to the unreasoned approach. Morality is not simply relative/subjective - it is also inter-relative/inter-subjective. Your moral conclusions can affect me greatly or slightly or not at all. When they have an interpersonal affect, a person who has reasoned to their moral conclusion is a person with whom a discussion/debate can be had. The potential for exploration and influence exists. When the person has essentially "flipped a coin" (or followed the herd, or locked onto the book), no such inter-personal discussion is possible.

So no, for a subjective value it doesn't really matter how you came about the decision.

Then be consistent and abandon reason for any and all subjective decisions for the rest of the year. Indeed - the rest of your life. When the decision is subjective, pull out your coin or die and ignore any arguments made by anyone for why you should choose X, Y, or Z. Don't consider ANY arguments yourself. Merely flip a coin or roll a die. When you have done that for at least a year - I'll know you actually LIVE what you claim to believe.

If you don't, you'll know you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

It was an example, carp. See above.

Sparko - you are taking the position "for subjective decisions - reasoning and rational arguments are irrelevant - random choice is just as good because it doesn't matter." So I'm suggesting you live according to this mantra. After all - if it's true - if you REALLY believe this - it is what you will naturally do. If you don't, then I suggest what you are SAYING is inconsistent with what you actually DO. I think we both know that you consider many things before making ANY decision of action - subjective or objective. But if you disagree, then living this way should be easy for you.

Your idiotic mockery is ignored.

Labeling my response "idiotic mockery" is an easy way to dismiss the argument, Sparko - but all I am doing is holding your position before you and tracing it's logical consequences. So now I have to ask who is dodging the issue. If you actually believe, "for subjective decisions - reasoning and rational arguments are irrelevant - random choice is just as good because it doesn't matter," why is suggesting that you actually LIVE that belief "idiotic mockery?" It seems pretty straightforward to me. It is your claimed position. Do you actually live it? I sincerely doubt it - but if you do - let me know.

Or do you now want to propose and argue, "there is no need for a person to actually live according to what they believe?"

[Sparko]

Absolutely. I loved (and love) her. But I gave a great deal of thought to the proposal based on whether or not I felt financially stable enough, whether or not I wanted to lock myself into an entire life with some of her foibles, whether or not I was ready to give up my bachelor freedom. She had to make a reasoned decision as well based on my inability to father children, my living situation, and so on. The decision was absolutely a reasoned one - and the fact that I love her was part of the decision. I certainly did not "flip a coin."



I have fallen in love with about 12 women in my life. I only proposed to two. They are not synonymous. Falling in love is a fact of life. Proposing is a decision to act. You are comparing apples and oranges.



Again - it's not about math - and you shifted the goal posts mid argument - from "asking to marry" (a decision) to "falling in love" (a fact about me).



Absolutely not - but then I never suggested it did.



Nope - I never suggested it would.



Nope - I never suggested it would.



Nope - I never suggested it would.



Yes. It would. You see, randomness can produce all sorts of things I cannot protect myself against. Like Mr. Rhea naming their daughter Diane Annabelle Rhea. How long do you think it would be before the kids at school pick up on "Di A. Rhea?" If there are already 12 "Michaels" in my family, yet another Michael is a formula for confusion. Each first child in my wife's family is named after a parent (her eldest brother is Joseph - her father's name, and she is Theresa, her mother's name). SOme studies suggest this is a formula for increased probability of depression. Considering the psychological impact on a child of being named after a parent can and should (IMO) factor in. Most parents give significant thought to what they want to name their child and why. I don't know a single person who flipped a coin or rolled a die.



Yep. In many possible ways - see above.



It doesn't have to matter to you. No one said it did. The point is, if someone has done research and determined there is a significant negative impact to naming children after oneself, or that odd names reduce the probability of gaining good employment - the person who "just flips a coin" will be impervious to ANY of that information. There is no way to discuss the issue - which is the point I have been making all along: if we want to be able to influence one another, decisions need to be based on reasons we can discuss. If they are not - so be it - but then there is no possibility of dialogue about the issues.

When the issues have the potential to actually affect others - that makes the reasoned approach superior to the unreasoned approach.



Then be consistent and abandon reason for any and all subjective decisions for the rest of the year. Indeed - the rest of your life. When the decision is subjective, pull out your coin or die and ignore any arguments made by anyone for why you should choose X, Y, or Z. Don't consider ANY arguments yourself. Merely flip a coin or roll a die. When you have done that for at least a year - I'll know you actually LIVE what you claim to believe.

If you don't, you'll know you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.



Sparko - you are taking the position "for subjective decisions - reasoning and rational arguments are irrelevant - random choice is just as good because it doesn't matter." So I'm suggesting you live according to this mantra. After all - if it's true - if you REALLY believe this - it is what you will naturally do. If you don't, then I suggest what you are SAYING is inconsistent with what you actually DO. I think we both know that you consider many things before making ANY decision of action - subjective or objective. But if you disagree, then living this way should be easy for you.



Labeling my response "idiotic mockery" is an easy way to dismiss the argument, Sparko - but all I am doing is holding your position before you and tracing it's logical consequences. So now I have to ask who is dodging the issue. If you actually believe, "for subjective decisions - reasoning and rational arguments are irrelevant - random choice is just as good because it doesn't matter," why is suggesting that you actually LIVE that belief "idiotic mockery?" It seems pretty straightforward to me. It is your claimed position. Do you actually live it? I sincerely doubt it - but if you do - let me know.

Please stop chopping up my posts carp. I am asking nicely. for the 4th time.

The point I was making is that as long as YOU are happy with the decision what does it matter how you came to it? If you wanted to name your son by using a book, then that subjective decision to name him Mike would be just as good as if you wrote a computer program to choose the most popular name in the world for him. As long as you are satisfied with the result then who am I to tell you that your methodology was flawed? The name you chose only had to please you because it is a subjective thing.

Is that hard to understand?

So I think homosexuality is wrong. And I used the bible to come to that conclusion. Or I did a scientific study to come to that conclusion. What does it matter to anyone but me? If that is my subjective moral view and I am satisfied with how I reached that decision, what does it matter to you? You might use another methodology to reach your subjective moral decision about homosexuality. More power to you. Seer might flip a coin. Alice might just feel that is it wrong. Since the moral value is subjective and has no actual objective reality, then it doesn't matter how they reached it as long as they are satisfied with the method. They have no obligation to please you or follow your methodology. So stop trying to tell us that our way is wrong. It isn't. It is only wrong for you.

Now if you wish to reply, at least keep my paragraphs together and respond to the entire concept instead of breaking it into teeny pieces so you can flail at each word independently and avoid the points I am making.

[seer]

No - you are inventing arguments I have never made. And, meanwhile, you are defending a position you do not live by. If you think you do, then I suggest the same thing to you that I suggested to Sparko: for the next month, make every subjective decision by flipping a coin and apply NO reasoning. After all - it's not an objectively better process - and the outcome doesn't matter - it's subjective.

Somehow - I doubt you are going to actually do that...

Carp, you recently made a deductive argument for why random killing was immoral. Are we to really believe you didn't think that random killing was deeply immoral before you ever made a deductive argument? Or if you could't formulate such an argument that then random killing was somehow less immoral to you? Of course not, the syllogism did not convince you that random killing was immoral, you already know that and then you formed the argument to confirm what you already believed. That Carp is a post hoc justification.

[carpedm9587]

Please stop chopping up my posts carp. I am asking nicely. for the 4th time.

Please stop telling me how to post, Sparko - or implying malicious intent.

Seriously, you ask a question, I insert a response. You make a statement I think is worthy of response, I insert the response. If you don't like how I post - talk to someone else. Trying to go through life controlling what other people do so you are happier seems to me an enormous waste of time.

The point I was making is that as long as YOU are happy with the decision what does it matter how you came to it?

The question is irrelevant to any point I have been making. And you are STILL in the position of arguing "irrational/non-rational decisions are as good as or possibly better than rational ones." You are the one making the somewhat ridiculous proposal. I am merely showing you the folly of your claim.

If you wanted to name your son by using a book, then that subjective decision to name him Mike would be just as good as if you wrote a computer program to choose the most popular name in the world for him. As long as you are satisfied with the result then who am I to tell you that your methodology was flawed? The name you chose only had to please you because it is a subjective thing.

Is that hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand - and it's completely irrelevant. My point, all along, has been a simple one:

"A rational approach to decision making is a objectively better approach than an irrational or non-rational one."

I could add, "especially when the decisions can have inter-personal implications." But I don't need to add that. The statement is self-evidently true - and you and Seer are disagreeing. You have taken the position:

"A rational approach to decision making is irrelevant for subjective decisions. It doesn't matter how you make the decision." You have explicitly stated this multiple times.

So - I'm asking you to confirm that you are true to your belief - and you make your subjective decisions without benefit of rational thought. After all - why waste the effort. it doesn't matter, right?

So I think homosexuality is wrong. And I used the bible to come to that conclusion. Or I did a scientific study to come to that conclusion. What does it matter to anyone but me? If that is my subjective moral view and I am satisfied with how I reached that decision, what does it matter to you?

Your moral position drives your external behavior. So you will vote for people who continue to put forward opposition to same-sex marriage, denying people you don't even know the right to marry one another because you don't think they should. They will lose many of the benefits married people enjoy (rights of inheritance, tax implications, medical decision making, etc.) because of people like you acting on this belief. You will post anti-homosexual posts here, where others can read them and perhaps be influenced by your words. You will advocate for these same people to not have equal access to services (like cakes) for no other reason than they are two people with the same genitals. Your moral position DEFINITELY impacts others. If you kept it to yourself, and never actually acted on it, no one would know and it would make no difference. But you expound upon it - and try to convince others to adopt your stance. And you take actions (i.e., voting) that have the potential to limit the choices of others. So of course it matters to the rest of us what Sparko (and all of the people like Sparko) think. If you succeed in swaying the majority of Americans to your point of view, people's lives will be affected.

So there is a significant motivation for engaging in moral discussions/debates on this issue. They impact not only you - but our society as a whole. But such debates are not possible with you and people like you, because reason has nothing to do with your morality. You are "following the herd" of a few dozen long dead men and your only criteria is "what is in the book." It would be far better to be able to explore the issues, discuss the ramifications, and look for alignment and consistency of position. But that is not possible - because you do not use reason for this decision. "What's in the book?" is the only criteria. Ergo - instead of adult discussion, all we can do is ignore you (if you aren't too in-your-face about it), seek to isolate/separate you from society if you are, or openly contend with you in the voting booth, in media, in any avenue available to engage in adult discussion and discourse.

Ultimately, you (and those like you) will marginalize yourself. While the rest of us are debating the issues and consequences and impacts - you will look increasingly out of touch as you continue to point to your ancient book as your justification. The next generation is increasingly scratching its head, saying, "you think what?"

You might use another methodology to reach your subjective moral decision about homosexuality. More power to you. Seer might flip a coin. Alice might just feel that is it wrong. Since the moral value is subjective and has no actual objective reality, then it doesn't matter how they reached it as long as they are satisfied with the method. They have no obligation to please you or follow your methodology. So stop trying to tell us that our way is wrong. It isn't. It is only wrong for you.

It is wrong in my moral framework. It is wrong in the majority of moral frameworks today in our culture, and that tide is continually shifting, so it isn't "only wrong for me." It's wrong for MANY of me. Your position on homosexuality is an immoral one - and a harmful one - and a demonstrably bigoted one - in a continually increasing number of moral frameworks. But you will not see any of that, because there is no rational argument that will penetrate "is it in the book?"

Now if you wish to reply, at least keep my paragraphs together and respond to the entire concept instead of breaking it into teeny pieces so you can flail at each word independently and avoid the points I am making.

Sparko - you are free to make this request as often as you wish. You are free to impugn my integrity - accuse me of maliciousness - and everything else you regularly do. I just delete from my responses the personal attacks (mostly) and focus on the issues. My happiness is dependent on what I do, not what you. But I post the way I post. If you don't like it - I suggest you talk to someone else. You will only be frustrated because I'm not changing how I approach a discussion for no other reason than you don't like it.

After all - it's all subjective, right? It shouldn't matter!

[seer]

It's wrong for MANY of me. Your position on homosexuality is an immoral one - and a harmful one - and a demonstrably bigoted one - in a continually increasing number of moral frameworks....

Another subjective opinion that we can take with a grain of salt. Good to know...

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you recently made a deductive argument for why random killing was immoral.

Yes - random killing is a decision to act. It is the conclusion (hopefully) of a rational process. If it is not, then it is an irrational or non-rational conclusion by definition.

Are we to really believe you didn't think that random killing was deeply immoral before you ever made a deductive argument?

I don't think I have ever made that claim. Indeed, I believe you will find that I have repeatedly said that we begin our moralizing by simply adopting the moral codes of the "authorities" around us - parents, teachers, etc. We do so largely because we lack the capacity to reason. Some people never shift from that model - simply transferring their moral reasoning from one authority to another - some ending up with "god" as the "ultimate authority." The rest of us begin to examine our moral conclusions as our ability to reason develops. The ones we can defend/support we continue to hold. The ones we cannot defend/support, we change or let go.

So did I think "random killing is wrong" first? Absolutely. That's how many of us (all of us?) begin. But if we cannot proceed to defend that position as we begin to reason, then it is an irrational/non-rational conclusion.

Or if you could't formulate such an argument that then random killing was somehow less immoral to you?

If I am a rational person, and I cannot find a rational argument for a moral conclusion - the moral conclusion should be abandoned. I have done so many times in my life. The fact that I have not let go of "random killing is immoral" is because I find the position to be rational and consistent with what I value (i.e., life/living).

Of course not, the syllogism did not convince you that random killing was immoral, you already know that and then you formed the argument to confirm what you already believed. That Carp is a post hoc justification.

Or it is examining a belief to determine why I hold it and being able to articulate it to oneself - or abandoning if it if I can't. That is my process. That you doubt that is not my problem - it's yours. I truly do not care if you think I am rationalizing or actually thinking rationally. I know I am reasoning from premises to conclusion. Some of those were new ideas as an adult. Some of those where vestiges of childhood I needed to examine. Indeed, at 60 years old, I still sometimes encounter a belief/idea I hold that gets challenged by someone and I find I have never really put that belief through the test of reason. When I do - some get let go (like "god exists") and others get retained (like "random killing is immoral").

Whether or not you believe me about the process is largely irrelevant.

[Sparko]

Please stop telling me how to post, Sparko - or implying malicious intent.

Seriously, you ask a question, I insert a response. You make a statement I think is worthy of response, I insert the response. If you don't like how I post - talk to someone else. Trying to go through life controlling what other people do so you are happier seems to me an enormous waste of time.



The question is irrelevant to any point I have been making. And you are STILL in the position of arguing "irrational/non-rational decisions are as good as or possibly better than rational ones." You are the one making the somewhat ridiculous proposal. I am merely showing you the folly of your claim.



It's not hard to understand - and it's completely irrelevant. My point, all along, has been a simple one:

"A rational approach to decision making is a objectively better approach than an irrational or non-rational one."

I could add, "especially when the decisions can have inter-personal implications." But I don't need to add that. The statement is self-evidently true - and you and Seer are disagreeing. You have taken the position:

"A rational approach to decision making is irrelevant for subjective decisions. It doesn't matter how you make the decision." You have explicitly stated this multiple times.

So - I'm asking you to confirm that you are true to your belief - and you make your subjective decisions without benefit of rational thought. After all - why waste the effort. it doesn't matter, right?



Your moral position drives your external behavior. So you will vote for people who continue to put forward opposition to same-sex marriage, denying people you don't even know the right to marry one another because you don't think they should. They will lose many of the benefits married people enjoy (rights of inheritance, tax implications, medical decision making, etc.) because of people like you acting on this belief. You will post anti-homosexual posts here, where others can read them and perhaps be influenced by your words. You will advocate for these same people to not have equal access to services (like cakes) for no other reason than they are two people with the same genitals. Your moral position DEFINITELY impacts others. If you kept it to yourself, and never actually acted on it, no one would know and it would make no difference. But you expound upon it - and try to convince others to adopt your stance. And you take actions (i.e., voting) that have the potential to limit the choices of others. So of course it matters to the rest of us what Sparko (and all of the people like Sparko) think. If you succeed in swaying the majority of Americans to your point of view, people's lives will be affected.

So there is a significant motivation for engaging in moral discussions/debates on this issue. They impact not only you - but our society as a whole. But such debates are not possible with you and people like you, because reason has nothing to do with your morality. You are "following the herd" of a few dozen long dead men and your only criteria is "what is in the book." It would be far better to be able to explore the issues, discuss the ramifications, and look for alignment and consistency of position. But that is not possible - because you do not use reason for this decision. "What's in the book?" is the only criteria. Ergo - instead of adult discussion, all we can do is ignore you (if you aren't too in-your-face about it), seek to isolate/separate you from society if you are, or openly contend with you in the voting booth, in media, in any avenue available to engage in adult discussion and discourse.

Ultimately, you (and those like you) will marginalize yourself. While the rest of us are debating the issues and consequences and impacts - you will look increasingly out of touch as you continue to point to your ancient book as your justification. The next generation is increasingly scratching its head, saying, "you think what?"



It is wrong in my moral framework. It is wrong in the majority of moral frameworks today in our culture, and that tide is continually shifting, so it isn't "only wrong for me." It's wrong for MANY of me. Your position on homosexuality is an immoral one - and a harmful one - and a demonstrably bigoted one - in a continually increasing number of moral frameworks. But you will not see any of that, because there is no rational argument that will penetrate "is it in the book?"



Sparko - you are free to make this request as often as you wish. You are free to impugn my integrity - accuse me of maliciousness - and everything else you regularly do. I just delete from my responses the personal attacks (mostly) and focus on the issues. My happiness is dependent on what I do, not what you. But I post the way I post. If you don't like it - I suggest you talk to someone else. You will only be frustrated because I'm not changing how I approach a discussion for no other reason than you don't like it.

After all - it's all subjective, right? It shouldn't matter!

So basically you respond with a bunch of subjective values of your own and expect me to give a crap or listen to you? You seem to act as if your moral views are objectively true, all the while arguing that they are only subjective. If they are subjective then my views on homosexuality are no better or worse than yours. So stop acting like they are. This has been my problem with your view on morality all along. You seem to believe in objective morality while arguing that you don't. You then try to rationalize your view and dismiss anyone else's.

I am done here.

I have better things to do with my time than to continue to argue with someone who is as close-minded as you are and as irrational.

[carpedm9587]

Another subjective opinion that we can take with a grain of salt. Good to know...

Yes - you can. Your moral framework will be determined by you. In your case, because you have locked it to "the book" and are "following the herd," logical discussion of specific moral issues is irrelevant/impossible. Ergo, we are left with ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend. For the most part, those parts of your moral norms that are archaic can be largely ignored (by me). We are naturally isolated/separated, so I don't need to be concerned about the impact of your views on my loved ones and/or friends. And whenever/wherever possible, I will contend with you. I will do so in the voting booth, the media, and any other place where I can speak to those who rationally apporrach their moral decision making. When they surface here, I can respond with logical/rational arguments that will mean nothing to you and will be dismissed by you, but will hopefully be meaningful to the lurker who is actually trying to use reason to arrive at moral conclusions. Eventually, I believe reasoning wins out and your views will increasingly become constrained to the few and the fanatical.

That's how it works.


(fortunately, we mostly agree on moral principals - so it will only be on select issues like homosexuality, transgenderism, general sexual morality, etc. I think we are in agreement on stealing and killing and so forth. We just are not in agreement for the same reasons.)

[carpedm9587]

So basically you respond with a bunch of subjective values of your own and expect me to give a crap or listen to you?

No. I actually have no expectations, Sparko. By your own admission, rationality is not a part of your subjective decision-making, so I am expressing my views because I have them. I don't expect a single one of them to convince you. They won't have a prayer of convincing you until you begin to actually apply reasoning. Then, they might. Unless you can point to an error in the reasoning.

You seem to act as if your moral views are objectively true, all the while arguing that they are only subjective.

Nope. You and Sparko (and others) keep coming back to this - but repeating it over and over again does not make it true. I know my moral views are my own. I know to what they agree they align with those around me. As with everyone, I will do what I can to convince others to "see things my way," for reasons already discussed. I cannot make that happen. When it doesn't: ignore, isolate/separate, contend.

If they are subjective then my views on homosexuality are no better or worse than yours.

Back to "green is not blue." I'm really tempted to toss in a set of rolled eyes...

So stop acting like they are.

You have a tendency to tell others how they should act, Sparko - have you ever noticed that? But your statement is true absolutely/objectively, and false relatively/subjectively - hence "green is not blue."

This has been my problem with your view on morality all along. You seem to believe in objective morality while arguing that you don't.

You know - I know the Trump mantra is "contiually repeat a lie and you can make it true," but it doesn't actually make it true. You understand that, right?

You then try to rationalize your view and dismiss anyone else's.

I am done here.

I have better things to do with my time than to continue to argue with someone who is as close-minded as you are and as irrational.

Thanks for the chat, Sparko. You are free to point to the specific places where my arguments have been irrational - but other than tossing that out as you exit the thread, I don't think you will be able to show it to be actually true. Indeed, I am not the one trying to make the argument that irrationality/non-rationality can be an objectively better decision-making process than rationality. So your closing barb rings more than a little hollow.

ETA: Sparko - you might want to look a bit closer to home. I have responded to each of your posts, and in detail, and you fairly regularly just toss in these wide, sweeping, unsubstantiated rants and then claim the rational high ground and accuse me of irrationality and close-mindedness. If you can't respond to the points made - it might be better if you just say so, or quietly disconnect. These rants don't reflect that well on you, IMO.