How to overturn Roe v. Wade

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 280
#151
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
you indeed denied the edit when you said “I don’t know I never said that
That was in reference to your question not the edit, why would I say I never said an edit, if it wasn’t for my mention of the edit you wouldn’t have bothered to go back and check, clearly I wanted you to see the edit.

I must conclude you are unable to respond to them.
Or you can conclude that I just don’t want to waste my time splitting hairs.

argument by assertion

Denying something is true is assertive
So I guess denying something is true is an argument, my point exactly.

The two parts of this sentence are unrelated as I stated.
And so were the two parts they were in reference to

I’m not begging the question I’m asking it
That was in reference to you accusing me of begging the question.

I’m not the one claiming there’s more than one morality you are
That was in reference to you accusing me of saying one morality and another, as far as I’m concerned there’s no another because like I said that’s your argument not mine.

don’t be an absurd cretin. Morality and immorality are linked in a moral framework - immorality can only be non existence in the absence of a valid moral framework; if morality doesn’t exist. Stop trying to object for the sake of it.
I don’t even know what this means but clearly it’s not hair splitting if my mention of it lead to you accusing me of more fallacies.

Saying this: all of this is completely irrelevant
Exactly how I felt about the points I ignored from you.

Lastly I don’t know if your numbering things to be annoying or you actually think your saying something but if it’s the latter maybe you should consider explaining the accusations your accusing me of because without the explanation they’re just that accusations.
#152
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
You’re still picking peanuts out of poop #47: I keep trying to drag you kicking and screaming back to the actual argument because, you know, this is “DebateArt” not “LetsIgnoreWhatPeopleSayArt”, and yet you appear utterly fixated with all these side tracks.

I’ve offered you a pretty comprehensive argument that shows why your original higher authority doesn’t make sense: and evolved behaviour does. You’ve ignored them for a dozen posts now, there’s not much else for me to do. I’m just wrapping up your nonsense over an argument you’ve already conceded. 

That was in reference to your question not the edit, why would I say I never said an edit, if it wasn’t for my mention of the edit you wouldn’t have bothered to go back and check, clearly I wanted you to see the edit.

You made an incoherent non-sequitur argument that made no sense; when I questioned how your non-sequitur related to the part you quoted you told me you never said that. You did say it: meaning this was, is and remains a big fat lie #48.

Instead of defending your claim: you’re just haggling over where it was a lie. This is picking peanuts out of poop #49: having conceded the actual argument #50

I must conclude you are unable to respond to them.
Or you can conclude that I just don’t want to waste my time splitting hairs.

Given that you’re putting in the time, energy and effort to make arguments, and you’re quite willing to spent 5 posts haggling over the minutiae of whether something is or is not a lie; it’s self evident that your failure to defend anything you’ve said is an issue of ability - not motivation.

Of course, one could make an argument by assertion #51 that somehow my arguments are all wrong and stupid; but the only way we can tell, is if you stopped vomiting unrelated assertions nonsense and actually explain why my arguments are wrong and stupid.

Also, stop Parroting #52: you’re not 7. Show me where I’m splitting hairs rather than just parroting back accusations.

Argument by assertion…. Denying something is true is assertive.

So I guess denying something is true is an argument, my point exactly.

Denying something is true is an argument by assertion; which refers to passing an assertion off as an argument: but an argument by assertion isn’t really an argument in the sense that doesn’t contain reasoning: only statements presented as fact passed off as reasoning. But again - your picking peanuts out of poop #53. You’re conceding #54 that your denial is an unfounded assertion that does not qualify as reasoning because it contains no justification - you’re just objecting to what I’m calling it.

The two parts of this sentence are unrelated as I stated.
And so were the two parts they were in reference to

I’m not the one claiming there’s more than one morality you are
That was in reference to you accusing me of saying one morality and another, as far as I’m concerned there’s no another because like I said that’s your argument not mine.

I’m not begging the question I’m asking it
That was in reference to you accusing me of begging the question.

At this point, your argument has become completely incoherent #55. You have completely lost track of what was being argued, when, why, how and are simply throwing out any thing you can object to, which is picking peanuts out of poop #56

You asked how I know one culture is moral and one is immoral: that is begging the question #57 - which I explained in great detail in 144. 

You’re question implicitly assumes the conclusion you’re trying to draw.

Whether or not in “claiming” that there is more than one reality has no relevance to whether your question begging or not. It’s a complete non sequitur #58. It makes no logical sense - and given that you refuse to actually explain the relevance of anything you’ve said, there’s little much more I can do other than point that out.

don’t be an absurd cretin. Morality and immorality are linked in a moral framework - immorality can only be non existence in the absence of a valid moral framework; if morality doesn’t exist. Stop trying to object for the sake of it.
I don’t even know what this means but clearly it’s not hair splitting if my mention of it lead to you accusing me of more fallacies.

What it means, is that you have things that can be considered moral, and things that can be considered immoral. They are packed together in “morality” - a moral framework. Morality is the framework through which we decide whether things are moral or immoral. 

If things that are immoral don’t exist - it can only be because morality - the moral framework doesn’t exist. So you’re argument conflates morality - meaning things that are moral, with morality - meaning the framework through which we determine things that are moral and immoral. This is equivocation #59 - splitting hairs.

Secondly, the premise that it can’t be splitting hairs if I point out that you’re splitting hairs - is another stupid non-sequitur #60.

Again however - this is still a red herring #61; the argument you made was a silly straw man - you’re not defending it, meaning you have conceded #62 the important point.

Saying this: all of this is completely irrelevant
Exactly how I felt about the points I ignored from you.

Lastly I don’t know if your numbering things to be annoying or you actually think your saying something but if it’s the latter maybe you should consider explaining the accusations your accusing me of because without the explanation they’re just that accusations.

Firstly, this is parroting #63 again You’re not 7.

So up until this point; you have been in your argument happy place #64: pretending all of the arguments you can’t answer don’t exist, and picking peanuts out of poop #65, by raising minor or irrelevant objections to an argument - whilst conceding #66 the primary point.

This reply is what I call “The Black Knight” #67 This is where a disingenuous debater makes statements or claims that are so obviously and blatantly in complete contradiction of reality - that they cannot be taken seriously - as the Black Knight does after losing an arms - “no you didn’t”

If you refer back to any one of my posts at all, I defend, explain, justify and walk you through key logical points on every single last issue you have raised - to the point of fault, as everyone reading can largely attest to.

If this is the only argument you can make at this point - then I don’t think it’s actually possible for you to engage in an intelligent discussion. An intelligent discussion requires, at the bare minimum, a common reality - and if you lack the capacity to read someones post and even acknowledge that they contain an argument - that minimum common reality required for discourse cannot be met.

Saying this, given that this kicked off because of burden shifting about a higher authority; and given that over the last dozen or so posts I have demonstrated why this claim is just silly, and given that you have already conceded this and every other point relevant to the original argument #68, it appears that the argument is over. All it seems you have left, is raising largely irrelevant objections that are now several layers of indirection removed from the original points.

So sure: feel free to debate whether or not one of your claims 7 pages ago is a lie; instead of defending the central premise you originally raised. Makes no difference to me!

#153
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m just gonna be straight up with you now, you can write a long drawn out essay if you want but your only going to be wasting your time because I’m only going to be reading what’s responsive to this quote

They are packed together in “morality” - a moral framework. Morality is the framework through which we decide whether things are moral or immoral.
This makes no sense, if morality and immorality are “packed together” like you claim they are you wouldn’t feel the need to separate them in your definition.

Write away.
#154
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
This is what I call “Good day sir” #69. When someone is incapable of arguing, and after exhausting other rhetorical techniques - picks some perceived slight, or issue and then cries “good day, sir” and leave

This makes no sense, if morality and immorality are “packed together” like you claim they are you wouldn’t feel the need to separate them in your definition.
I need to separate them in my definition so I can explain how and why you’re equivocating. (Which you appear to have conceded #70) 

Either way - this is irrelevant - you’ve already conceded #71 your higher authority argument.


#155
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
picks some perceived slight, or issue and then cries “good day, sir” and leave
…That makes no sense, the slight and issue is exactly why the accusation is false, just because I don’t respond to every stupid thing you say doesn’t mean I’m saying “good day sir” or leaving for that matter, I’m still here and I was there the last time we got into a similar dispute on a previous thread, you left. 

I need to separate them in my definition so I can explain how and why you’re equivocating.
Which you still failed to do, because I wasn’t equivocating in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth considering my separation of the two terms emphasizes their distinction. So if anything I was emphasizing not equivocating, miss me with that.
#156
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
…That makes no sense, the slight and issue is exactly why the accusation is false, just because I don’t respond to every stupid thing you say doesn’t mean I’m saying “good day sir” or leaving for that matter, I’m still here and I was there the last time we got into a similar dispute on a previous thread, you left. 
A good day sir #72, is when someone is completely unable to mount a logical defence of their point; and so makes up for this total failure by blaming some perceived issue or slight for their failure to respond.

This is what you’re doing. You’re unable to answer any of the arguments, you have capitulated in the defence of your points, and conceded everything we’ve talked about up until this point - and are trying to save face by trying to declare that I am somehow to blame for your lack of ability.

Which you still failed to do, because I wasn’t equivocating in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth considering my separation of the two terms emphasizes their distinction. So if anything I was emphasizing not equivocating, miss me with that.
You appear to have completely forgotten the argument. Let me refresh your memory from the posts you have already conceded..

“are you denying the existence of immorality?”

What a ridiculous straw man #38 morality is subjective - not non-existent

I said IMMORALITY, again comprehension dude.

Don’t be an obtuse cretin Morality and immorality are linked in a moral framework - immorality can only be non existent in the absence of a valid moral framework; if morality doesn’t exist.
Let me walk you through this: I have justified why morality is subjective, and why morality is best explained by evolutionary mechanism rather than a higher authority. You have not challenged any of this, so you have already lost the argument #73.

You’re making a serious of irrelevant objections so you can be seen to be objecting - picking peanuts out of poop #74. You have no ability to criticize my actual argument in a way that refutes it - you’re simply raising an objection.

So you’re objection is just a stupid straw man #75: as nothing about my argument means that immorality doesn’t exist. You haven’t contested this, and so have already lost that argument too #76.

Instead of defending the straw man, you raise an objection to it; objecting to the language being used. Because I used the word morality - and you used Immorality, you object that I’m not talking about the same thing. I explain exactly what I mean by this - that immorality can only be non-existent, if there is no moral framework to judge it - so the only way for immorality to not exist; is for morality to be non existent. Basically explaining that we’re both talking about the same thing, and your argument is splitting hairs by pretending they’re different. You didn’t contest this either by using what I said and rejecting how it applies to the argument and so you’ve lost the argument three times in a row #77.

You don’t defend the straw man; or your complaint about mismatched terms,  instead you complain about me calling it splitting hairs: to which I point out you have conflated “morality” as in the unifying framework that allows us to determine what is moral and immoral, which is what I’m using - with “morality” as in the collection of actions that are moral - as opposed to “immorality” as in the collection of actions that are immoral - which you clearly did. I’m using one, you’re pretending I’m using the other… of course - you ignore this, and don’t attempt to go back and argue against the original point using my updated characterization, meaning you are now 4/4 having lost that part of the argument #78.


Your final response is to go off the rails with some completely incoherent jumble of statements that make no sense in the context of what we’re actually talking about. In your quest to find any type of objection to what I said; you are now raising an objection to an objection to an objection to an objection of an argument I had made; and appear to have completely lost track of wtf you’re talking about.
#157
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
A good day sir #72, is when someone is completely unable to mount a logical defence of their point; and so makes up for this total failure by blaming some perceived issue or slight for their failure to respond.
Again makes no sense because if it were “completely” I would’ve left (like I said I’m still here and I don’t have to make up for anything because I didn’t do anything wrong), you can call that splitting hairs if you want but fact of the matter is there’s a huge fundamental difference between staying and going and the former applies to me.

Let me walk you through this: I have justified why morality is subjective, and why morality is best explained by evolutionary mechanism rather than a higher authority. You have not challenged any of this, so you have already lost the argument #73.
Even if that was true (which it wasn’t) that has nothing to do with my question in regards to immorality? Hence why why I didn’t “challenge” any of the dribble you were spewing.

as nothing about my argument means that immorality doesn’t exist.
Then why did you take issue and move the goal post when I asked you a question in regards to it? Because the only reason to take issue with the question is if your of the belief that immorality is nonexistent that’s why, and if you don’t like my assessment of the answer then feel free to answer it yourself.

so the only way for immorality to not exist; is for morality to be non existent. Basically explaining that we’re both talking about the same thing
The former sentence does not explain the latter sentence in the slightest, just because two separate/different things are dependent on something else’s existence doesn’t mean those two separate/different things are the same thing hence why they’re TWO SEPARATE/DIFFERENT things, two is separate/different from one genius lol.

You don’t defend the straw man; or your complaint about mismatched terms,  instead you complain about me calling it splitting hairs: to which I point out you have conflated “morality” as in the unifying framework that allows us to determine what is moral and immoral, which is what I’m using - with “morality” as in the collection of actions that are moral - as opposed to “immorality” as in the collection of actions that are immoral - which you clearly did. I’m using one, you’re pretending I’m using the other… of course - you ignore this, and don’t attempt to go back and argue against the original point using my updated characterization, meaning you are now 4/4 having lost that part of the argument #78.
You’ve lost me on all of this and maybe I can try to read it back to try to understand what your trying to say but just like the other things you’ve said this too will also be ignored.

and appear to have completely lost track of wtf you’re talking about.
I can say something similar about you (oh wait I did).
#158
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
A good day sir #72, is when someone is completely unable to mount a logical defence of their point; and so makes up for this total failure by blaming some perceived issue or slight for their failure to respond.

Again makes no sense because if it were  “completely” I would’ve left (like I said I’m still here and I don’t have to make up for anything because I didn’t do anything wrong), you can call that splitting hairs if you want but fact of the matter is there’s a huge fundamental difference between staying and going and the former applies to me.
False #79: You don’t have to leave to be a good day dir; you simply have to:
A.) Repeatedly fail or refuse to justify your points and arguments - this applies.
B.) To point to something I have done as the reason you’re not replying. This also applies.

Also: false #80: ignoring everything you don’t like, not acknowledging arguments made; and repeatedly lying in order to try and make an argument is absolutely doing something wrong.

Even if that was true (which it wasn’t) that has nothing to do with my question in regards to immorality? Hence why why I didn’t “challenge” any of the dribble you were spewing.
False #81 It is absolutely true as shown in my previous arguments, I can refer you back if you are unable to understand which one - and you have not contested.

False #82: my response has everything to do with your question about immorality; I explained exactly why over the course of the last dozen posts. I can reference the key ones if you have difficult understanding.

Lie #83: Don’t pretend that your continual inability to argue is my problem - any dishonest, slack witted idiot can loudly claim that someone else is wrong. You’re inability to argue here is being treated for what it is - capitulation on the point.


as nothing about my argument means that immorality doesn’t exist.
Then why did you take issue and move the goal post when I asked you a question in regards to it? Because the only reason to take issue with the question is if your of the belief that immorality is nonexistent that’s why, and if you don’t like my assessment of the answer then feel free to answer it yourself.
Moving the goalposts is when you demand a particular standard, and then when it is met, demand a different standard. Challenging a question is clearly absolutely not moving the goal posts: this is a ridiculous non sequitur #84.

I have pointed out exactly why I took issue with this in my previous post: it’s a ridiculous straw man: #85

so the only way for immorality to not exist; is for morality to be non existent. Basically explaining that we’re both talking about the same thing
The former sentence does not explain the latter sentence in the slightest, just because two things are dependent on something else’s existence doesn’t mean those two things are the same thing hence why they’re TWO things, two is separate from one genius lol.
The former sentence(s) - you clipped out much of the explanation - explain why saying immorality doesn’t exist means the same thing as morality not existing - so it very much explains the latter sentence; completely refer back to the original posts for more detail. For the latter - it is just incoherent #85: it makes no sense whatsoever in relation to what you actually said about immorality. Sure morality as a framework is different from moral things and immoral things; that’s my whole point - and is specifically why what you’re doing is equivocation. At this point I don’t even think you know what you’re trying to argue for, or how it relates to what you said any more. I certainly can’t figure it out. 

You’ve lost me on all of this and maybe I can try to read it back to try to understand what your trying to say but just like the other things you’ve said this too will also be ignored.
It explains exactly what the terms you equivocated and how: it’s the second time I’ve tried to explain it; your lack of comprehension at this point, is not my problem. 

Saying that; this is the an objection to an objection to an objection to an objection of an argument you still haven’t bothered to contest: so frankly - it’s completely irrelevant #86 anyway: as you have already lost the argument 20 posts ago. #87

Finally, you and I both know you’re ignoring my points because you cannot deal with them; it seems pretty self evident given your repeated dishonesty, repeated lies and denial of reality, together with your constant parroting: and frequent dips into incoherent nonsense. Don’t blame me for this to try and save face - not a single rational person would believe for a second that you’ve gone back and fourth for 30 posts on this ridiculous minutiae, spending ten posts talking about whether a single complaint is equivocation - and yet are not challenging the fundamental core of my “babble” argument on the grounds that it’s a waste of your time.. this should be treated for what it is -  a lie #88; one of many you have told In this exchange.



#159
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
You don’t have to leave to be a good day dir; 
Now your just expressing dishonesty/bad faith because according to this quote

When someone is incapable of arguing, and after exhausting other rhetorical techniques - picks some perceived slight, or issue and then cries “good day, sir” and leave
Leaving is imperative, I mean it’s literally the last word in the quote.

ignoring everything you don’t like
You mean like I did with the rest of that quote lol?

my response has everything to do with your question about immorality; I explained exactly why over the course of the last dozen posts.
Well the last dozen posts wasn’t the initial response so which one is it?

You’re inability to argue here is being treated for what it is - capitulation on the point.
Right back at ya bud 😉. 

Moving the goalposts is when you demand a particular standard, and then when it is met, demand a different standard.
I’ll concede that I used the term moving the goalposts for lack of a better term at the time (because I’m big enough to do that) but for someone who’s all about mentioning splitting hairs this is a perfect example of that because regardless of what term I use the main point still stands and that’s

the only reason to take issue with the question is if your of the belief that immorality is nonexistent that’s why, and if you don’t like my assessment of the answer then feel free to answer it yourself.

I have pointed out exactly why I took issue with this in my previous post: it’s a ridiculous straw man: #85
Calling something a straw man when it’s not isn’t an explanation it’s just a baseless claim that any idiot can do try again.


#160
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
You don’t have to leave to be a good day dir; 
Now your just expressing dishonesty/bad faith because according to this quote

When someone is incapable of arguing, and after exhausting other rhetorical techniques - picks some perceived slight, or issue and then cries “good day, sir” and leave
Leaving is imperative, I mean it’s literally the last word in the quote.
Ridiculous Lie #89: This is getting pretty ridiculous now. A “Good day sir”, is a name I have come up with to refer to behaviour I am describing.

If you want to tell me that a definition I have personally come up with and clarified is somehow incorrect - go right ahead. I don’t even know how that works!

You’re not contesting #90 at all, that you’re incapable and unwilling of defending any of your arguments. 

Nor are you contesting #91 at all that your just dishonestly trying to blame me for your own inability to argue.

So regardless it’s still this ridiculous form of picking peanuts out of poop #92: where you don’t bother to contest any of the major issues, and focus on some minor semantic nonsense. It’s getting ridiculous.


So frankly, that concession on the main points is more than enough for me. 

Imagine for a moment someone was being called an idiot, smelly, socially inept, unimaginative, buffoon, who is incapable of wiping their own arse, and is incapable of engaging in a conversation with words of more than 2 syllables; and the person replies:

“That’s completely wrong, I can wipe my own arse”

That’s like you.

In fact, I like that analogy so much; i’m going to label extreme forms of PPooP as “But I can wipe my own arse #92 from now on. Replacing the one above.

While we’re on that topic though; just for you, I will invent a brand new name for this subset of “Good Day Sir”ing. Figuring out the best name is why this post has taken so long.

I shall call it: “argumentile Dysfunction. #93”

Argumentile dysfunction, is when someone has substantial argumental impotence; they are unable to rise to the occasion and penetrate their opponents position, or show their own arguments actually work till completion… their inability to perform, or for their arguments to satisfy a minimum standard.

Their argumental impotence is fully their own issue, it’s their problem, and is down to them alone; nonetheless, those suffering from argumentile dysfunction will nonetheless make up a series of excuses and place blame on others for why they aren’t performing. “I’m not in the mood hun”, or “I ate a lot earlier, and am feeling bloated” and “you’re arguments don’t make sense anyway; Im going to ignore them.


 


ignoring everything you don’t like
You mean like I did with the rest of that quote lol?
Cherry picking #94: actually no.

I mean, that you’ve ignored the original point; you dishonestly shifting blame, but also ignoring where I point out it’s my definition, and ignoring when I clarify what I mean twice, or where I point out that you’ve already conceded your main argument. Etc.

In fact, you can only make this argument if you ignore everything else I’ve said.

my response has everything to do with your question about immorality; I explained exactly why over the course of the last dozen posts.
Well the last dozen posts wasn’t the initial response so which one is it?
Black Knighting #95: denial of reality - the initial response and all the posts subsequent to it all make the same argument; and one which you keep ignoring. You can refer back to when I called it a straw man, and explained exactly why (which you have not contested)

I mean seriously; all these incoherent accusations, and repeated posts can be avoided if you just stopped pretending I haven’t made an argument.

Also: this is technically “But I can wipe my own arse” #96


You’re inability to argue here is being treated for what it is - capitulation on the point.
Right back at ya bud 😉. 
Parroting #97. Again. You’re not 7. I’m rubber, you’re glue.

Black Knighting #98. You’re in a completely alternate reality, that is clearly not this reality if you believe that  I am not arguing or defending my points. 

Moving the goalposts is when you demand a particular standard, and then when it is met, demand a different standard.
I’ll concede that I used the term moving the goalposts for lack of a better term at the time (because I’m big enough to do that) but for someone who’s all about mentioning splitting hairs this is a perfect example of that because regardless of what term I use the main point still stands and that’s

the only reason to take issue with the question is if your of the belief that immorality is nonexistent that’s why, and if you don’t like my assessment of the answer then feel free to answer it yourself.
Black Knighting  #99: but the main point doesn’t still stand… I already pointed out the specific issue with it multiple posts ago; you even quoted the part where I pointed out exactly why the main point doesn’t work.

How is it possible to argue with someone to whom I can literally explain why they’re wrong; and then whilst quoting my explanation - tells me I haven’t provided an explanation of why they’re wrong?



I have pointed out exactly why I took issue with this in my previous post: it’s a ridiculous straw man: #85
Calling something a straw man when it’s not isn’t an explanation it’s just a baseless claim that any idiot can do try again.

Black Knighting #100 again.: Absolutely. That’s why in my previous post when I called it a straw man - I explained exactly why.

Quite frankly - you’re losing your grip on reality - it is not possible to have a rational coherent argument with someone who is unwilling to even acknowledge another person has presented an argument.

If I present you an argument; and you ignore it; and then later tell me I have never made an argument - how is possible to engage in a rational discussion?

#161
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
I don’t even know how that works!
You don’t know how exposing dishonesty/bad faith works? Weird considering you’ve accused me of that over the course of this discussion 🤔 .

the initial response and all the posts subsequent to it all make the same argument; and one which you keep ignoring.
I asked a question, so the only responsive response to a question is an answer (which I still didn’t get BTW) so your dishonesty/bad faith is apparent in post #144 when you blatantly ignored my question, considering you retired the “good day sir” label on me I guess I’ll pick it up and use it against you to expose your hypocrisy because you basically said “good day sir” in regards to my question mr “I want to call other people out on ignoring things yet I do it myself”, miss me with that.

I already pointed out the specific issue with it multiple posts ago; you even quoted the part where I pointed out exactly why the main point doesn’t work.
Did you? Well in that case feel free to point me in that direction (if such direction exists that is) otherwise just saying you did so means nothing.
#162
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
I don’t even know how that works!
You don’t know how exposing dishonesty/bad faith works? Weird considering you’ve accused me of that over the course of this discussion 🤔 .

I know exactly how exposing intellectual dishonest works. Let me give you an example:

What I said was “If you want to tell me that a definition I have personally come up with and clarified is somehow incorrect - go right ahead. I don’t even know how that works!”

It is clear, to any honest, somewhat intelligent individual, that what I’m referring to, is your frankly ridiculous attempt at telling me what a thing I have unilaterally defined means something other than how I define it . I don’t know why on earth you think that is logical.


So to expose intellectual dishonesty: I identify what you did : which was to deliberately take words out of context in order to pretend I’m saying something that I did not: which is a straw man #101, and I identify how you presented this to make it seem like it was reasonable - by quoting it out of context - QuoteMining #102; and to also point out that you have ignored every other part of the argument that attacks your position which in this case is objecting stating “But I can can wipe my own arse”

I can also pick up multiple deliberate lies #103 you have made where it is clear and obvious I have provided something that you claim I have not ; and repeated attempts to pretend reality is other than it is when responding.

This means that not only is your statement also another of a long list of lies #104 it demonstrates beautifully your profound intellectual dishonesty.

I asked a question, so the only responsive response to a question is an answer (which I still didn’t get BTW) so your dishonesty/bad faith is apparent in post #144 when you blatantly ignored my question, considering you retired the “good day sir” label on me I guess I’ll pick it up and use it against you to expose your hypocrisy because you basically said “good day sir” in regards to my question.
Black knighting #104. Brazen denial of reality. You’re claiming I’m ignoring a question that I addressed in three different ways.

Lie #105: A good day sir, requires the person not to have presented an argument, and to blame the other person for that failure.

Ridiculously false #106: there is three valid responses to a question. 1.) showing the question is irrelevant and the answer doesn’t matter, 2.) Answering it, 3.) showing the question is dishonest and shouldn’t be answered.


Despite your ridiculous denial of reality, I so all three

Let’s refer back:

[1]So the issue is that on its face, the facts we observe do not make sense in the context of a greater authority: and is fully explainable without it.  This comprehensively refutes your position; and frankly - as you made no attempt to bother to explain how a greater authority is a better explanation: your continued lack of argument effectively concedes this point. [2]As I have been suggesting throughout; morality appears subjective, it’s mutable, it changes, it differs, and everyone thinks theirs is correct. There is also no objective standard that can be shown valid to judge them. Because of this, the only justifiable explanation, is that morality is subjective[2]. Of course, with peanut poop picking, you’ve implicitly conceded that point too.

The itself question therefore is really fallacy: begging the question #32. [2]For one morality to be true and another false: there must be an objective standard between them. [3]So you’re question really is “what if there is an objective standard”. Given that my argument is that there clearly doesn’t appear to be an objective standard; replying “but what if there is an objective standard?” is just ridiculously incoherent. Worse though, I am only wrong if you assume there is an objective standard; but that assumption is what you appear to be using to justify the higher authority: so you’re assuming your own conclusion.
Let’s look break down the answers here: more context can be found in 144:

[1] The question is irrelevant and need not be answered in the context of the argument: (the context of the argument was that emotion/morality is explainable without a higher authority - which it is: this question doesn’t challenge that explanation (only asks what if its wrong).

[2] I actually go on to answer the question. Twice!

[3] I show how the question is loaded and based on a dishonest premise with your assumed conclusion.

This is just pure dishonest insanity #107 at this point! you’re claiming I didn’t respond to your question whereas in fact, I comprehensively dismantled the question in two ways; and still answered the question.


I already pointed out the specific issue with it multiple posts ago; you even quoted the part where I pointed out exactly why the main point doesn’t work.
Did you? Well in that case feel free to point me in that direction (if such direction exists that is) otherwise just saying you did so means nothing.
Insanity #108: The bolded part you quoted is where I literally pointed you in the direction in the original posy

the only reason to take issue with the question is if your of the belief that immorality is nonexistent that’s why, and if you don’t like my assessment of the answer then feel free to answer it yourself.

I have pointed out exactly why I took issue with this in my previous post: it’s a ridiculous straw man: #85
Annnnnmd back to post 144 and the one prior which  explains the straw man and clarifies the point in detail.

Seriously, perhaps if you didn’t ignore everything; you’d not make such silly error



#163
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
It is clear, to any honest, somewhat intelligent individual, that what I’m referring to, is your frankly ridiculous attempt at telling me what a thing I have unilaterally defined means something other than how I define it .
That’s not the case at all in fact I have no idea what your phrase means because judging BY YOUR WORDS ALONE the definitions contradict each other and contradictions make no sense, kinda like your outwardly view on morality.

Despite your ridiculous denial of reality, I so all three
It’s fundamentally impossible to do all three but coming from you that response doesn’t surprise me because you’ve uttered a lot of things that made no sense.

[1] The question is irrelevant and need not be answered in the context of the argument: (the context of the argument was that emotion/morality is explainable without a higher authority - which it is: this question doesn’t challenge that explanation (only asks what if its wrong).
First off all the context of the moral argument started with me and zedvictor4, you just decided to make yourself a participant, so if anybody understands it it’s me. Second the reason I asked such a question is if you for once considered morality and immorality then maybe you wouldn’t have made the ridiculous claim in regards to the variations of morality (which is inconsistent and makes no sense at all) but judging by all the other idiotic things you’ve said you probably still would have anyway (can’t blame a guy for trying).
#164
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
It is clear, to any honest, somewhat intelligent individual, that what I’m referring to, is your frankly ridiculous attempt at telling me what a thing I have unilaterally defined means something other than how I define it .
That’s not the case at all in fact I have no idea what your phrase means because judging BY YOUR WORDS ALONE the definitions contradict each other and contradictions make no sense,
So you’ve conceded that you’re being flagrantly dishonest with the quote mine, and the misrepresentation. Awesome.

So just to explain something that you may not fully grasp: is that when someone explains what they mean, they sometimes clarify areas of uncertainty challenge later.

For example, they may have said something one way at one point, or perhaps talked about something in a manner that was incomplete.

Clarification is a huge part of arguments; where arguments and meanings maybe clarified in a back and forth when, Say, one side doesn’t quite understand the meaning, or one side is colossally dishonest and is deliberately trying to pick fault in meaningless trivia.

A clarification - and the original being subtly different: does not mean that the two are contradictory; rather one mops up ambiguity or issues if challenge.

So what you’re really doing is stamping your feet 109: irrationally asserting that the definition must only be exactly as I said originally, and cannot possibly ever be clarified. Of course, it’s plain old nonsense; and, as is par for the course, wholly dishonest #110


kinda like your outwardly view on morality.
Argument by assertion #111: still waiting for the proof on that; or indeed anything more than hand waving and chest beating. Maybe soon; given that after 30 posts you keep getting drawn back to the place you started driving off on tangents…

Despite your ridiculous denial of reality, I do all three
It’s fundamentally impossible to do all three but coming from you that response doesn’t surprise me because you’ve uttered a lot of things that made no sense.
What utter bullshit #112 of course it’s possible to show a question is irrelevant, loaded and still answered the question; mainly because none of those things are contradictory. You don’t even explain how you came to that conclusion, meaning that as well as being bullshit, it’s also argument by assertion #113


I can also tell, because I clearly and obviously did all three.

I can even do it again.

“When did you stop beating your wife?”

We’re not talking about your wife, or your actions: so the question is irrelevant: it presupposes you beat your wife, so is loaded; and you appear to be 7 given you’re logical reasoning and behaviour, so you clearly have never been married in the first place, so you never had a wife for which to beat or not.

First off all the context of the moral argument started with me and zedvictor4, you just decided to make yourself a participant,
Correct: you made a statement that wasn’t a completely fabrication! That’s #1!

so if anybody understands it it’s me.
So close: given that we are having an exchange based on specific things we said: we should both understand how this exchange started.

Second the reason I asked such a question is if you for once considered morality and immorality then maybe you wouldn’t have made the ridiculous  claim in regards to the variations of morality
My “claims” in terms of variations of morality was that different cultures and different times have different moral standards.

This is not really a claim: it is an indisputable and undeniable matter of fact.

So in this regards: stating this is a “ridiculous” claim is a flat out lie #115. Moreover; I am still waiting for you explain why you think the claim is ridiculous - you have only made an argument by assertion #116; loudly asserting it so.

Perhaps you meant that explaining the deviations and changes in moral standards through the ages and through various cultures is explained by morality being learned and subjective? Well you haven’t really said why (argument by assertion #117), and it seems that morality being a learned behaviour stemming from evolutionary imperatives does pretty nearly explain the facts as they stand…


(which is inconsistent and makes no sense at all) but judging by all the other idiotic things you’ve said you probably still would have anyway (can’t blame a guy for trying).
Again, foot stamping #118 and assertion #119: why is suggesting that morality is subjective; and acknowledging that morality varies in societies and cultures “inconsistent” - and for what reason so you think it makes “no sense at all”? It’s not clear and you won’t say.

Varying moralities over time is exactly what you would expect in a system where morality is learned; and as I explained way back in the dim distant past, evolutionary imperatives explain why they could exist - so there doesn’t seem to be anything inconsistent there, and it seems to make sense too - in fact it matches pretty closely with what we observe.

So while I am here constantly explaining, justifying: and trying to drag you by the hair back to the original point: you’re just throwing out all these unsubstantiated accusations, that are clearly complete bullshit #120, and as a result of your argumential impotence; you’ve now gone 40 or so posts trying to make me play “hunt the argument” #121







#165
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
subtly different
Lol understatement of the century, they were more than different they were polar opposites, miss me with that.

This is not really a claim: it is an indisputable and undeniable matter of fact.
You can claim facts (but that’s not the hear nor there), and just because people have different cultures that doesn’t mean they should all be considered moral (hence my very relevant question that I just now brought extra context for you which you still haven’t answered BTW).

why is suggesting that morality is subjective; and acknowledging that morality varies in societies and cultures “inconsistent”
Because consistency doesn’t vary, they’re literally opposite terms, read a book 😛 .

so there doesn’t seem to be anything inconsistent there, and it seems to make sense too
So between good people going to a good place and evil people going to an evil place or this crazy notion that you can love and help people and end up in the same place as someone who lies, steals, and kills, which concept makes more sense to you? The former by far.
#166
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
subtly different
Lol understatement of the century, they were more than different they were polar opposites, miss me with that.
Not really: both involve using perceived slight in order to justify lack of interaction; the difference is whether it’s required to be total. So, that would be false #122


This is not really a claim: it is an indisputable and undeniable matter of fact.
You can claim facts (but that’s not the hear nor there), and just because people have different cultures that doesn’t mean they should all be considered moral (hence my very relevant question that I just now brought extra context for you which you still haven’t answered BTW).
Who on earth said all cultures and societies should be “considered moral”? It certainly wasn’t me. As you’re misrepresenting my argument as saying something it’s not, then attacking the conclusion: it makes this a straw man #123

why is suggesting that morality is subjective; and acknowledging that morality varies in societies and cultures “inconsistent”
Because consistency doesn’t vary, they’re literally opposite terms, read a book 😛 .
Who in earth said morality is consistent? It wasn’t me: I’m arguing morality is learnt and thus variable…  you’re misrepresenting my argument and then attacking the result. That’a another straw man #124.

Your dishonesty and failure to defend your position is starting to make sense; as it seems whenever you talk about the actual point, you manage to do the equivalent of managing shooting yourself in both feet whilst holding only a rake: like - I’m impressed you managed to f**k that badly, I still don’t get how you did it,  but you still shot yourself in both feet…


so there doesn’t seem to be anything inconsistent there, and it seems to make sense too
So between good people going to a good place and evil people going to an evil place or this crazy notion that you can love and help people and end up in the same place as someone who lies, steals, and kills, which concept makes more sense to you? The former by far.
Depends what you mean by “makes more sense”.

If “which fits the facts” the latter - as I showed in all the posts you keep ignoring.

If “which is preferable” - the forner: but would be argument from personal preference #125

If “which is logically consistent”, again the latter; as I have explained how it could arise, and used that framework to make sense of all sorts of aspects of morality.


I mean - given that you have dedicated exactly 0 characters thus far to justify that conclusion; thus again renders this an argument by assertion #125




Topic's author
#167
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Tarik
or this crazy notion that you can love and help people and end up in the same place as someone who lies, steals, and kills, which concept makes more sense to you? The former by far.
Agreed. The scriptures are fairly plentiful in description that there is not one heaven, nor one hell, but that there are several kingdoms in to which people will be judged to fit, depending on their relative obedience such that all will be comfortable in the relative kingdom into which they will be sent. This also answers Ramshutu's idea that morality among all cultures is not identical, but shifts in perspective from culture to culture. This does not mean that murderers/rapists end up with more civil people, b y which description there are variables, as well. Good thing God is judge, because leaving that to human understanding will fail.
#168
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
Who on earth said all cultures and societies should be “considered moral”?
You did when you said

different cultures and different times have different moral standards.
Key word “moral” it’s the second to last word in the quote above, your delusion is ridiculous.

Who in earth said morality is consistent? It wasn’t me
Your right it’s me, morality is consistent and consistency makes sense.

If “which is preferable” - the forner: but would be argument from personal preference #125
Now your just being a hypocrite because according to you the core of “subjective morality” is personal preference but when I ask you a question that reference your preference you shoot it down, miss me with that.

as I have explained how it could arise, and used that framework to make sense of all sorts of aspects of morality.
Correction YOU CLAIMED it could arise you’ve yet to explain anything, big difference. Like I said before if it isn’t consistent it doesn’t make sense period.
#169
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
Who on earth said all cultures and societies should be “considered moral”?
You did when you said

different cultures and different times have different moral standards.
Key word “moral” it’s the second to last word in the quote above, your delusion is ridiculous.
Oh my lord. This is hilarious.

You do realize that saying that different cultures have different moral standards doesn’t mean all cultures should be considered moral. 

I cannot express the utter buffoonery of this statement; you’ve gone from dishonest to complete clown.

Let me see if I can dumb this down for you.

A moral standard, is a framework that can be used to make moral determinations..

Saying different cultures have different moral standards is saying that what different cultures consider right or wrong is different. 

Saying this; makes absolute no statement about and is no way suggesting, implying or making any actual moral determinations about any of them; I mean wtf lol.

This is one of the stupidest and most logically incoherent thing you’ve said thus far: grotesquely idiotic #126. Indeed, saying something so profoundly stupid, while attempting to sound superior is again somehow shooting your self in both feet with a rake: #127






Who in earth said morality is consistent? It wasn’t me
Your right it’s me, morality is consistent and consistency makes sense.
But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing Over time and from society to society. … try to keep up…


If “which fits the facts” the latter - as I showed in all the posts you keep ignoring.
No you haven’t, stop lying.
Black knighting #129: oh come on. It’s literally all there. Written repeatedly in all my posts in the last page. Both above and below post 144. This is obscene denial… seriously; you keep saying outrageously false Stuff like this. Who are you saying or for? Not you or me: we both know this claim is ridiculous nonsense: and literally no rational person reading this thread would make that conclusion.


#170
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
Saying different cultures have different moral standards is saying that what different cultures consider right or wrong is different. 
No it’s not.

But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing Over time and from society to society
Like I said many times before inconsistency makes no sense.

Black knighting #129: oh come on. It’s literally all there. Written repeatedly in all my posts in the last page. Both above and below post 144. This is obscene denial… seriously; you keep saying outrageously false Stuff like this. Who are you saying or for? Not you or me: we both know this claim is ridiculous nonsense: and literally no rational person reading this thread would make that conclusion.
I edited my previous post in case you missed it.
#171
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
Saying different cultures have different moral standards is saying that what different cultures consider right or wrong is different. 
No it’s not.
He asserts..#139

Yea it is you ridiculous cretin. This is just completely ridiculous #140

“A moral standard refers to the norms which we have about the types of actions which we believe to be morally acceptable and morally unacceptable


“Moral standards are those concerned with or relating to human behaviour , especially the distinction between good and bad behaviour. Moral standards involves the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are morally right and wrong.”




But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing Over time and from society to society
Like I said many times before inconsistency makes no sense.
Firstly, yes it does: I explained why (learned morality would be subjective, inconsistent and ever changing). 

You keep changing your mind what your argument. First it was that morality is consistent (it’s not), that my argument requires morality to be consistent (if doesn’t), and that inconsistency makes no sense (it does - but it is consistent)

All of them are just ridiculous nonsense #141



Black knighting #129: oh come on. It’s literally all there. Written repeatedly in all my posts in the last page. Both above and below post 144. This is obscene denial… seriously; you keep saying outrageously false Stuff like this. Who are you saying or for? Not you or me: we both know this claim is ridiculous nonsense: and literally no rational person reading this thread would make that conclusion.
I edited my previous post in case you missed it.

is preferable” - the forner: but would be argument from personal preference #125
Now your just being a hypocrite because according to you the core of “subjective morality” is personal preference but when I ask you a question that reference your preference you shoot it down, miss me with that.
Stop with the ridiculous straw men: #142 saying “according to you” is a bit fat lie #143 - I have not said anything of the like. Ever. Stop making stuff up. Stop pretending I’ve said things I haven’t. It’s getting ridiculous - and is the third time you’ve done it in 3 posts.

Subjective morality simply means the moral standard you have is learned, changes from generation to generation; with no objective standard by which we can determine which of the moral standards is “best”

as I have explained how it could arise, and used that framework to make sense of all sorts of aspects of morality.
Correction YOU CLAIMED it could arise you’ve yet to explain anything, big difference. Like I said before if it isn’t consistent it doesn’t make sense period.
You keep saying that; yet you have not once been able to explain why. Just more meaningless assertions #144 I provided an explanation in post 97; fleshed out some of the aspects in post 126, 128, 132, (when I finally dragged you back), way more detail in 134. So please don’t. This is comprehensive denial of reality. Just because you ignore everything - does not mean the argument is not there…

#172
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
Subjective morality simply means the moral standard you have is learned
But you can only learn what your taught and you would only teach what you prefer (hence my preference argument you now want to shoot down).

You keep saying that; yet you have not once been able to explain why.
If your arguing about a particular issue in regards to morality and someone says your argument is inconsistent there also saying it’s incoherent because your contradicting yourself by talking on both sides of your mouth, it’s a dishonest self refuting hypocrisy, a cognitive dissonance of sorts. Can I be anymore redundant?
#173
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
You keep saying that; yet you have not once been able to explain why. Just more meaningless assertions #144 I provided an explanation in post 97; fleshed out some of the aspects in post 126, 128, 132, (when I finally dragged you back), way more detail in 134. So please don’t. This is comprehensive denial of reality. Just because you ignore everything - does not mean the argument is not there…
That sure shut you up didn’t it. It’s awesome watching you magically stop responding to a train of argument the moment  I specifically point out the arguments you claim I didn’t make… gone to your Happy Place #145


Subjective morality simply means the moral standard you have is learned
But you can only learn what your taught and you would only teach what you prefer (hence my preference argument you now want to shoot down).
Excellent - so you’re agreeing  that in a subjective morality - your moral decisions are not youe choice; our  moral standard is not something we change on whim, we cannot simply decide to think murder is okay tommorow.

Awesome. That’s what I was objecting to.

If you want to argue that parents could potentially teach kids that murder is okay - they can: I don’t think they do; parents generally teach their own current morality - but it’s the choice, or personal preference in deciding what is moral that I am objecting to. As you to be conceding that. I have no other issue

You keep saying that; yet you have not once been able to explain why.
If your arguing about a particular issue in regards to morality and someone says your argument is inconsistent there also saying it’s incoherent because your contradicting yourself by talking on both sides of your mouth, it’s a dishonest self refuting hypocrisy, a cognitive dissonance of sorts. Can I be anymore redundant?
I think everyone can agree that you have gone dozens of posts telling me that my argument is inconsistent, incoherent, contradicting yada , yada. Argument by Assertion #146

But, that’s all you do. I’ve been prompting you to explain why for three pages now… at this point; still waiting..

#174
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
moral standard is not something we change

But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing
Contradiction at its finest 🥱.

but it’s the choice, or personal preference in deciding what is moral that I am objecting to.
Then why’d you criticize me for argument from personal preference?

But, that’s all you do. I’ve been prompting you to explain why for three pages now… at this point; still waiting..
Just look above bro, even a blind man can see that.
#175
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@Tarik

moral standard is not something we change

But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing
Contradiction at its finest 🥱.
You took him out of context



Excellent - so you’re agreeing  that in a subjective morality - your moral decisions are not youe choice; our  moral standard is not something we change on whim, we cannot simply decide to think murder is okay tomorrow.




#176
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
moral standard is not something we change

But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing
Contradiction at its finest 🥱.
Only if you’re obtusely dishonest #147; which it seems you are.

In the first I am talking about our moral standard we have as individuals: which is not something WE change; as in, we don’t decide what is moral on a whim, or simply decide that something is moral. 

In the second; I am talking about collective moral standards of societies as a whole; which change over time. 

So yeah. If you ignore everything I’ve said up until now, cherry pick #148  two quotes out of context, and deliberate misrepresent what I’ve said #149 - you could make that argument… but it would be a a grotesque straw man; #150


but it’s the choice, or personal preference in deciding what is moral that I am objecting to.
Then why’d you criticize me for argument from personal preference?
The argument from personal preference was directed at your argument that good people going to a good place and bad people makes more sense (in one interpretation of ambiguous language). You’re losing track of your own arguments #151

You later said I claimed “the core of “subjective morality” is personal preference” - which I didn’t: and given that you agree the only real aspect of subjective morality that could arguably be called personal preference, is what that parents teach their kids morality they prefer; you can’t really call that the “core” of subjective morality, that’s a footnote at best; so I don’t mind you throwing the baby out with the bathwater #152 with that clarification.






#177
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
You took him out of context
No I didn’t, just because I didn’t quote the whole quote doesn’t mean the context is different if I did.
#178
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
In the first I am talking about our moral standard we have as individuals: which is not something WE change
People change their minds about things all the time, you even said it yourself

An argument is “a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong
So if people can be persuaded then what does that tell you?

you can’t really call that the “core” of subjective morality, that’s a footnote at best
Now who’s splitting hairs 🤔?
#179
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
In the first I am talking about our moral standard we have as individuals: which is not something WE change
People change their minds about things all the time, you even said it yourself

An argument is “a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong
So if people can be persuaded then what does that tell you?
This made me lol. You’re accidentally trying to refute your own position. This is why picking peanuts out of poop #153 is such a bad strategy.

It appears you’re trying to argue that morality can be changed by personal preference - to refute my position that it can’t - but that which would make it subjective your definition a few posts ago.

Do you think what we find moral or not can be changed on a whim of personal preference?

If yes: you’ve basically conceded you’re entire argument, as you’re conceding morality is subjective, and a product of personal choice not higher authority

If no: the point you’re arguing against stands.

you can’t really call that the “core” of subjective morality, that’s a footnote at best
Now who’s splitting hairs 🤔?
False: #154 Splitting hairs is where you draw a distinction on something that is so trivially separated that the difference is actually relevant. The distinction here is huge. When a moral framework is constructed by and interpreted through an individuals personal preference, that would be core: a moral framework that is constructed by and interpreted through learned behaviour and experience; with personal preference only appearing as a factor in behaviour important by parents  - personal preference is sort of a side note.

#180
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
It appears you’re trying to argue that morality can be changed by personal preference
No, I exposed your hypocrisy in post #174 you tried to clarify your hypocrisy but all you ended up doing was telling more falsehoods that I mentioned in post #178.

personal preference is sort of a side note.
It’s splitting hairs because it takes away from the larger point, which is you can’t criticize me for personal preference when that’s included (according to you) in morality that you don’t keep that same energy for, it’s hypocritical whether that be the core or a side note it’s still included period.