[h3ltrsk3ltr]

Therealpoder, I believe the most qualified opponent of you is you...

[weambulance]

1. If context matters in determining the morality of an act, absolute morality is debunked. That is the original point I was laying a foundation for with the questions you took several thousand words to finally answer. No doubt you will try to find a loophole. Good luck.

2. Observation is not a personal attack. Your style is characteristic of exactly what I described. Unfortunately it doesn't work so well in written form when the other party can easily crosscheck old posts for freshly exposed logic holes.

Quote:

If [you] aren't qualified to judge anything then how can you judge my arguments to be incorrect?

Amazing. Now you've turned your own original strawman into a claim that I said I was unable to judge anything at all. Absolutely absurd.

[Suits]

(07-16-2017 04:56 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

The only person you're going to convince with retarded lawyerese of the sort you spout is another lawyer. No doubt you think you're clever, but you sound insane to a normal person.

You're a high verbal IQ type--giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you're on a mobile device; your formatting leaves much to be desired--with no capacity for understanding and applying logic. Else, you would not leave gaping logic chasms in your arguments that a six year old could pick out just by paying attention to what you say.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Therealpoder has done just fine responding to your questions.

His responses are nuanced and reasonable.

You simply seem upset that you've be unable to drag the conversation down to an intellectual level where you can be right.

[cascadecombo]

(07-16-2017 11:40 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Can't do it, huh? Gotta weasel around? I'm shocked.

[weambulance]

Cute, Suits. Another drive by snipe, conveniently well after the thread had moved past your failure to step up.

[Suits]

(07-16-2017 06:42 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Cute, Suits. Another drive by snipe, conveniently well after the thread had moved past your failure to step up.

There's nothing unreasonable about a forum member not answering a question that has already been answered in detail.

You can't simply demand that a question be re-answered again and again until you get a response that is convenient to your purposes.

That's not how a discussion works.

[h3ltrsk3ltr]

Delete: asked clarifying question

[weambulance]

This line of discussion started with my implicit disagreement with therealpoder's claim that:

Quote:

Anyone can judge. Absolute moral exist and when individuals violate those morals, they should be condemned.

I do not believe the existence of absolute morals has been established at all in this thread. The best that can be said in that regard is that I can't disprove that there is some higher absolute morality than is found in humanity at large. And I never claimed I could.

[therealpoder]

"If context matters in determining the morality of an act, absolute morality is debunked."

It doesn't logically follow. How does the conclusion (absolute morality is debunked) follow from the premise (context matters in determining morality)? State your premises plainly and show how the conclusion must follow.

"Observation is not a personal attack. Your style is characteristic of exactly what I described. Unfortunately it doesn't work so well in written form when the other party can easily crosscheck old posts for freshly exposed logic holes."

It's is a personal attack since it has nothing to do with the merits of my argument and serves no purpose other than to dismiss me. It doesn't matter if everything you've said is about me is true. It doesn't refute my argument. In any case, I'm enjoying this argument and since you rather argue with me than do the myriad of other things you could be doing, I assume you do as well.


"Now you've turned your own original strawman into a claim that I said I was unable to judge anything at all. Absolutely absurd.

That was your claim. The part I quoted, you said "who am I to judge?" then you spent this entire thread making a judgment that my opinion is wrong. Apparently, you *do* think you are in a position to judge making your original non judgmental stance wrong. If you don't see how that isn't contradictory, I don't know what to tell you.

[weambulance]

(07-16-2017 06:47 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 06:42 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Cute, Suits. Another drive by snipe, conveniently well after the thread had moved past your failure to step up.

There's nothing unreasonable about a forum member not answering a question that has already been answered in detail.

You can't simply demand that a question be re-answered again and again until you get a response that is convenient to your purposes.

That's not how a discussion works.

In point of fact, starting from common ground with simple questions and basic principles is exactly how many good discussions do work. Perhaps you're familiar with the Socratic method?

The point of asking simple questions is to make sure we're all in the same logical starting point at the beginning, so there is no confusion due to the participants making different assumptions. If you refuse to even answer basic questions how are we supposed to have a discussion working from the same first principles?

It's very clear looking at the "discussion" in the last ~20 posts that there was an awful lot of ill-defined verbiage flying around. That could've been avoided if simple questions were answered instead of brushed off as inconsequential, obvious, or--as you've now accused me of--dishonest attempts to get a favorable answer instead of an accurate one.

[cascadecombo]

(07-16-2017 07:16 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

In point of fact, starting from common ground with simple questions and basic principles is exactly how many good discussions do work. Perhaps you're familiar with the Socratic method?

...

So, you admit to there being multiple ways of carrying on a solid conversation and yet refuse to have one in any other way but what you desire.

[weambulance]

- Murder and rape are not granular acts. They are acts in a specific context. The acts themselves are "killing a human being" and "having sexual intercourse" respectively.
- Discussions of absolute morality discuss acts at their core. Moral absolutism explicitly states that an act is inherently good or bad, regardless of context.

Quote:

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

If you're taking the position of moral absolutism that certain acts are always wrong, you cannot allow context to enter the equation. In absolute terms, if killing a human is wrong, there is no extenuating circumstance that can make it "right".

Yet, it is widely accepted that killing a human can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances. Likewise for sex. You admitted it yourself, that the circumstances (motive, mindset, etc) of a killing define it as murder. Likewise for rape.

Thus, context matters.
Thus, moral absolutism is invalid.

-----

But to repeat what I said before, it is possible there is a higher absolute morality that we cannot know. That is outside the bounds of this discussion and is not disprovable.

Quote:

"Now you've turned your own original strawman into a claim that I said I was unable to judge anything at all. Absolutely absurd.

That was your claim. The part I quoted, you said "who am I to judge?" then you spent this entire thread making a judgment that my opinion is wrong. Apparently, you *do* think you are in a position to judge making your original non judgmental stance wrong. If you don't see how that isn't contradictory, I don't know what to tell you.

Dude. You cannot extrapolate me saying "I am not going to judge Thomas Jefferson for something that happened 220 years ago and the details of which I do not fully know" into "I am not fit to judge anything". That is absolutely absurd, and if you can't see why, I don't know what to tell you.

[weambulance]

(07-16-2017 07:30 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 07:16 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

In point of fact, starting from common ground with simple questions and basic principles is exactly how many good discussions do work. Perhaps you're familiar with the Socratic method?

...

So, you admit to there being multiple ways of carrying on a solid conversation and yet refuse to have one in any other way but what you desire.

Good timing, slick.

[cascadecombo]

(07-16-2017 07:34 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 07:30 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 07:16 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

In point of fact, starting from common ground with simple questions and basic principles is exactly how many good discussions do work. Perhaps you're familiar with the Socratic method?

...

So, you admit to there being multiple ways of carrying on a solid conversation and yet refuse to have one in any other way but what you desire.

Good timing, slick.

Always refreshing to know others are in agreement with me.

[weambulance]

(07-16-2017 07:53 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 07:34 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 07:30 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 07:16 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

In point of fact, starting from common ground with simple questions and basic principles is exactly how many good discussions do work. Perhaps you're familiar with the Socratic method?

...

So, you admit to there being multiple ways of carrying on a solid conversation and yet refuse to have one in any other way but what you desire.

Good timing, slick.

Always refreshing to know others are in agreement with me.

Yeah, "I'm right cause people agree with me" has always taken people so far. That's why the geocentrists are still in charge today.

Now since you wanted to share your two cents in criticizing me, please explain to me how a "solid conversation" is supposed to happen without all parties coming to an understanding of what basic terms mean? You see, that only happened in this thread's conversation within the last few posts.

[therealpoder]

Ah…I see the difficulty. We have been talking past each other because we do not agree on what “moral absolutism” is. I do not agree with the definition you posted for the simple fact that unless context is taken into account, you cannot define “rape” vs. “consensual sex” or “murder” vs. “manslaughter”. This discussion would have been more productive if we clearly defined terms but oh well.

“Dude. You cannot extrapolate me saying "I am not going to judge Thomas Jefferson for something that happened 220 years ago and the details of which I do not fully know" into "I am not fit to judge anything". That is absolutely absurd, and if you can't see why, I don't know what to tell you.”

That really wasn’t the claim I was making. If you don’t know all the details of something then it is logical and reasonable not to judge. Just like if you don’t know the details of something, then it is logical and reasonable not to call an act murder as opposed to manslaughter.

[Suits]

(07-16-2017 07:32 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

- Murder and rape are not granular acts. They are acts in a specific context. The acts themselves are "killing a human being" and "having sexual intercourse" respectively.
- Discussions of absolute morality discuss acts at their core. Moral absolutism explicitly states that an act is inherently good or bad, regardless of context.

Quote:

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

If you're taking the position of moral absolutism that certain acts are always wrong, you cannot allow context to enter the equation. In absolute terms, if killing a human is wrong, there is no extenuating circumstance that can make it "right".

This is a perfect example of constructing a false dichotomy. You're arguing that there are only two options.

(1) An option where context does not matter, and

(2) An option where only context matters.

In reality, there is a third option.

(3) We create a clearly worded definition for an act that we believe to be objectively wrong.

For example, murder is the unjust killing of a person.

Rape is sex that occurs without the consent of one party or where one party is judged to not have the ability to consent.

Of course, context matters, which is why we have judges and juries tasked with becoming acquainted with the facts of specific cases and making a judgment based on the specific context of that specific situation.



Pretty simple stuff.

This in itself doesn't prove or disprove the existence of objective right and wrong. That's a different discussion altogether.

Context matters in determining whether a specific circumstance was an example of rape. It matters not in society deciding whether or not a forced act of sex is objectively wrong or not.

I can just imagine Weambulance defending himself in a court of law against a murder charge.

Judge:I hereby find the defending guilty of the crime of first degree murder.

Weambulance: But what is murder?

Judge: That's a good point. You're free to go.

[weambulance]

^



You just argued against a point I didn't even make, and argued for exactly what I've been saying from jump street! Which is: societies define their own morality based on their values and social context.

I constructed a logical proof re: moral absolutism based on the definition of moral absolutism--which I did not pull out of thin air. I was not attempting to define a rigorous moral code for society in the post you quoted. That is not how logical proofs work.

[weambulance]

(07-16-2017 08:05 PM)therealpoder Wrote:  

Ah…I see the difficulty. We have been talking past each other because we do not agree on what “moral absolutism” is. I do not agree with the definition you posted for the simple fact that unless context is taken into account, you cannot define “rape” vs. “consensual sex” or “murder” vs. “manslaughter”. This discussion would have been more productive if we clearly defined terms but oh well.

Yes, this all seems silly now because I doubt we actually disagree substantively on morality. I was working from the definition of moral absolutism I gave above, a lens of interpretation that made what you were saying sound completely insane.

Sorry for jumping on you.

[Suits]

At this point, I am not even sure what side of the debate I'm on.

I'm just here to drop some dank memes.

(07-16-2017 06:21 AM)therealpoder Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 06:33 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 05:01 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Who cares - back then the masters of the households fucked their maids, all their legal servants, every girl opening their legs and likely a good deal of the servants. Even if he did that, then who cares?

Yes. I agree. If something is common enough, it's basically OK. Like rape accusation.

Women making false accusations of rape is now commonplace. Who cares? No big deal.

It's normal.

Same goes for school teachers having sex with their under-aged students, male or female. It happens all the time. No big deal.

Or gay faggot sex. Pretty normal now. Who cares?

So if someone made a false accusation of rape against you, or if you had a 10 year old daughter had a male teacher and her teacher banged her, it is okay because it happens all the time?

Just because an immoral act is common does not mean that it is no longer immoral. This moral relativism that is displayed here is no different than not having any morals at all. It makes it impossible to condemn any act as wrong.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I personally know that the bedrock definitive law on morals rests firmly in my own head.

The degree to which I tolerate deviance from this standard in the behaviour of others is affected by issues including but not limited to:

* How much power that person has over me.
* How much power I have over that person.
* The degree to which their deviancy affects my life.

This state of being is typically what's called "being a human".

[puckerman]

I often wondered about Jefferson taking Sally to France with him, if she could have petitioned for freedom. This often happened when slaves were taken to foreign countries where slavery wasn't legal. If the slave was knowledgeable of the laws, the slave would petition the court and then walk out of the court a free person.

I also wonder if there was some type of stockholm syndrome at play here. This is when kidnapping victims fall in love with their kidnappers. Is it possible that Sally fell in love with Thomas Jefferson? Is it possible that Jefferson may have felt the same way?

There is no way in the world that a white person could have married a black person in this time? The only way they could have a relationship would be for one to own the other. This is hardly an ideal situation, of course. But I have long wondered if this was the reason.

[Stanfield]

A bit off topic. Why would anyone accept to be a slave? Wouldnt it be better to be dead than castrated and enslaved?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(07-11-2017 06:33 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 05:01 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Who cares - back then the masters of the households fucked their maids, all their legal servants, every girl opening their legs and likely a good deal of the servants. Even if he did that, then who cares?

Yes. I agree. If something is common enough, it's basically OK. Like rape accusation.

Women making false accusations of rape is now commonplace. Who cares? No big deal.

It's normal.

Same goes for school teachers having sex with their under-aged students, male or female. It happens all the time. No big deal.

Or gay faggot sex. Pretty normal now. Who cares?

That is not what I meant. I am not for moral relativism.

The point I am making is HOW THE FUCK WILL YOU FIND OUT IF JEFFERSON TRULY RAPED A BLACK GIRL BACK THEN?

There are Hadiths about Mohammed that he took girls and advocated for taking girls against their will (anyone that the right hand possesses). Also he was killed by a woman whose husband, sons and entire male tribe he previously killed.

But about Jefferson? Who is to say that he fucked a girl against her will or whether a cute black thing thought that banging the master is not going to result in a more advantageous position for her, maybe if Jefferson made her pregnant, he may even release her later with some cash. It is not as if back then pretty black girls had a ton of professional options like becoming an actress, model, cocktail girl, high-end escort etc. How are you going to find out with the sources we have going back hundreds of years whether it was truly and actually rape or whether it was willing sex?

That is what I mean. Currently in the postmodernist shitty times they cannot even find out whether a girl you fucked 6 months ago does not consider it rape. Mike Tyson was convicted of rape by a serial accuser with the flimsiest of accusations.

So my question of DOES NOT MATTER is not that it truly does not matter like an idiotic postmodernist moral relativist, but rather HOW THE FUCK WILL YOU PROVE THIS GIVEN THE HYPERGAMOUS NATURE OF WOMEN AND THE STATUS OF JEFFERSON AND THE OPTIONS OF WOMEN BACK THEN? This is by the way also an issue with all white poor girls.

[MMM]

Do you guys even work? Who has time to quibble over this stuff? Hell, I don't have time to read it.