User Tag List

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011
Results 101 to 108 of 108

Thread: Morality: Human Construct or Natural Law?

  1. #101
    Justice & Truth V.I.P
    Overall activity: 60.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sedona, Az USA
    Posts
    9,842
    Thanks
    11,787
    Thanked: 7,139
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    21474850
    Quote Originally Posted by Sled Dog View Post
    Whoops. False alarm.No.Established fact. I reference this post of your as proof. You declared statements of historical fact to be "assertions", you expressed opinions as fact, you continue to commingle the concepts of "Morality" with "sin", even though the latter concept has been proven to be illogical and hence impossible.As I've said elsewhere, I toy with you as a means of instructing your betters.Of course I have so established that as fact.YOU attempted to pin the concept of morality to the concept of sin.Sin was shown to be non-existent.YOU attempted to establish morality as a universal code of behavior based on some kind of imaginary "Natural Law".I presented EVIDENCE that morality is not a constant, that it varies from culture to culture, thereby refuting your assertion to natural law.This is how these arguments work, pal. You say something wrong, I show where you fucked up.That's just a lie from you.As usual.Facts were provided, references were provided above upon your request.All of which are constructs of culture.Prior to the Agricultural Revolution, there was very little "property". People shared freely and all "property" was held in common. Just like their women.Since I don't feel like citing yet ANOTHER reference you won't read, just don't read the first few chapters of Our Oriental Heritage so you won't see evidence that proves you wrong, again.Oh.You mean morality is not mandated from superior power?I'm going to leave that one alone.Everyone that matters is going to see you saying that and laugh their asses off at you.Here, let me be the first:Actually "might makes right" is indeed the shortest and most accurate depiction of human history ever written.As you were told, ad nauseam, morality is a social construct. True altruism is extremely rare and ("altruism" is going to be another one of those words you are incapable of defining, isn't it?) is generally regarded as an extreme expression of the instinctual urges of parenthood adapted by evolution to satisfy the needs of the group to protect lineal descendants from harm, thereby preserving genetic posterity, a motivation that is no longer valid when the groups have become so large that an individuals act of self-sacrifice rarely directly benefits his personal posterity.Societal evolution is Lamarkian not Darwinian and thus happens much too fast for the physical changes to adapt to.Oh.That's right. You like to deny reality.Well, once you take away reality from anything you say, you're probably perfectly correct. The evidence is in, folks. This guy cannot define "logic".Actually, the entire history of mankind is the basis for my statement. YOUR statement that morality is some kind of absolute or universal programming was proven false by the post you responded to.Oh.Shit.I forgot.You don't know what "logic" is.Is there a special school where people like you get Masters Degrees in your special kind of incoherence?Because if there's not, I'm sure you can become rich if you establish one.Rodents will line up around the block to get in.Oh.You believe an "axiom" is a TOOL, used for "cutting".You already proved you don't know what the word means, so now you're trying to be the next Lenny Bruce.That's cute.Ignorant.But cute.Right.And at one time the concept of property did no exist.Nor did the concept of "liberty".Both terms are rooted firmly in the Agricultural Revolution.See? You're not the only one to make funnies.I'm bored and ain't gonna scroll up again to see the text you quoted.Since I said it, obviously it's "really".Yeah, sure.Your responses on other threads have been models of logical dissertation and presentation of fact.Like on that Sin thread cited above.So funny.The honest people know better.
    More blah, blah, blah. You don't provide reason or arguments, just insults & ridicule. You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass. Your arrogant pontificating, pretending to 'know everything' is just pretension.. you provide no arguments, just insults.

    Where are there any facts, quotes, studies, history, or any references to anything in your posts? Those are unimportant to you, as all you want or need is ridicule & ad hominem.

    I have defended you for years, urging others to overlook your rudeness & obnoxious posting, & try to see the points you make. But i have given your too much credit. You don't make points, other than to insult or demean others. We'll get a visiting leftist, who will post a few lines, & you are all over them, ridiculing, insulting, & demeaning them, without any rational rebuttal. You constantly call them 'rodents', & call them liars, even when some have not said anything. And you do the same thing with christians & people of faith. You are rude, demeaning, & irrational, in your blind hatred of christians, whom you lump together in some kind of hostile soup.

    You NEVER provide reasoning, or debate ideas or philosophy, just dogmatically assert YOUR beliefs, as if they are Absolute Truth. That is the action of a True Believer, not a scientifically minded person.

    I don't begrudge you your opinion. You can believe whatever you want. I don't care. But when you viciously attack other people's beliefs, when yours are just as 'religious', it becomes an absurd, irrational act of a dogmatic enemy of freedom. You do not allow others to express or reason their beliefs, but dogmatically declare YOURS as 'settled science', & ridicule any conflicting opinions. If you had some valid evidence, one might overlook such outbursts, but you have none. Your beliefs in naturalism are just as religious as anyone else's, & you demonstrate your intolerance with jihadist zeal for your beliefs. Muhammad would be proud.

    You must think that lying or calling names is effective. You falsely accuse others of lying, while doing it yourself. But for those who follow reason, evidence, & Truth, lies just fall off.. they don't stick. But when i point out your incivil, rude behavior, & your lies & distortions, it has a sting to it, because it is based in truth & reality.

    It seems to me you take pride in being the forum asshole. Fine. I don't care. Whatever floats your boat. But if you are constantly dishing it out, you can't complain if it comes back, every now & then. For you to complain about 'ad hominem!' or 'breaking forum rules!' is the height of hypocrisy.

    You worry too much over what you THINK people will think, in this exchange. I provide you with Truth, even if it stings a bit. I don't care what some uninvolved passerby might think, reading your distortions & accusations. I know the truth. But i am not sure if you do. You are either a deliberate liar & distorter, as the progressive left models constantly, or you are a deluded fool, who cannot distinguish between fantasy & reality.. another typical trait of the left. Either way, i can only refute lies & distortions with the Truth, which is what i do. What you do with it, is up to you.

    I suspect you will continue your descent into mocking ridicule, as this is really all you have. You drink derision, & piss ridicule. And you call it, 'reason'. I can think of nobody that illustrates the orwellian redefinition of language better than you. So bring it on, if that gives you some jollies. I might return fire for a while, but i lack the intensity & commitment to assholery that you have, so i will eventually tire of bickering with you, & leave you to your folly.

    I'll leave you with a few words to look up, since they don't have any apparent place in your vocabulary.
    Introspection.
    Balance.
    Tolerance.
    Scientific Methodology.
    Due Process.
    Reason.
    Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. ... It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ~Frédéric Bastiat

  2. #102
    Alumni Member
    Overall activity: 32.0%

    Dan40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    24,394
    Thanks
    945
    Thanked: 12,335
    Rep Power
    21474865
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    More blah, blah, blah. You don't provide reason or arguments, just insults & ridicule. You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass. Your arrogant pontificating, pretending to 'know everything' is just pretension.. you provide no arguments, just insults.

    Where are there any facts, quotes, studies, history, or any references to anything in your posts? Those are unimportant to you, as all you want or need is ridicule & ad hominem.

    I have defended you for years, urging others to overlook your rudeness & obnoxious posting, & try to see the points you make. But i have given your too much credit. You don't make points, other than to insult or demean others. We'll get a visiting leftist, who will post a few lines, & you are all over them, ridiculing, insulting, & demeaning them, without any rational rebuttal. You constantly call them 'rodents', & call them liars, even when some have not said anything. And you do the same thing with christians & people of faith. You are rude, demeaning, & irrational, in your blind hatred of christians, whom you lump together in some kind of hostile soup.

    You NEVER provide reasoning, or debate ideas or philosophy, just dogmatically assert YOUR beliefs, as if they are Absolute Truth. That is the action of a True Believer, not a scientifically minded person.

    I don't begrudge you your opinion. You can believe whatever you want. I don't care. But when you viciously attack other people's beliefs, when yours are just as 'religious', it becomes an absurd, irrational act of a dogmatic enemy of freedom. You do not allow others to express or reason their beliefs, but dogmatically declare YOURS as 'settled science', & ridicule any conflicting opinions. If you had some valid evidence, one might overlook such outbursts, but you have none. Your beliefs in naturalism are just as religious as anyone else's, & you demonstrate your intolerance with jihadist zeal for your beliefs. Muhammad would be proud.

    You must think that lying or calling names is effective. You falsely accuse others of lying, while doing it yourself. But for those who follow reason, evidence, & Truth, lies just fall off.. they don't stick. But when i point out your incivil, rude behavior, & your lies & distortions, it has a sting to it, because it is based in truth & reality.

    It seems to me you take pride in being the forum asshole. Fine. I don't care. Whatever floats your boat. But if you are constantly dishing it out, you can't complain if it comes back, every now & then. For you to complain about 'ad hominem!' or 'breaking forum rules!' is the height of hypocrisy.

    You worry too much over what you THINK people will think, in this exchange. I provide you with Truth, even if it stings a bit. I don't care what some uninvolved passerby might think, reading your distortions & accusations. I know the truth. But i am not sure if you do. You are either a deliberate liar & distorter, as the progressive left models constantly, or you are a deluded fool, who cannot distinguish between fantasy & reality.. another typical trait of the left. Either way, i can only refute lies & distortions with the Truth, which is what i do. What you do with it, is up to you.

    I suspect you will continue your descent into mocking ridicule, as this is really all you have. You drink derision, & piss ridicule. And you call it, 'reason'. I can think of nobody that illustrates the orwellian redefinition of language better than you. So bring it on, if that gives you some jollies. I might return fire for a while, but i lack the intensity & commitment to assholery that you have, so i will eventually tire of bickering with you, & leave you to your folly.

    I'll leave you with a few words to look up, since they don't have any apparent place in your vocabulary.
    Introspection.
    Balance.
    Tolerance.
    Scientific Methodology.
    Due Process.
    Reason.
    Murder, rape, genocide, torture, human bombs, assassins, Dachau, Treblinka. Bataan Death March. US "CIVIL" War 1,700,000 casualties, etc. etc. etc.
    #BlackLIESMatter

    I VOTED FOR THE PRESIDENT!

    Political Correctness is HATE SPEECH!

    THE GREATEST DANGER TO THE USA IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

  3. #103
    Justice & Truth V.I.P
    Overall activity: 60.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sedona, Az USA
    Posts
    9,842
    Thanks
    11,787
    Thanked: 7,139
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    21474850
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan40 View Post
    Murder, rape, genocide, torture, human bombs, assassins, Dachau, Treblinka. Bataan Death March. US "CIVIL" War 1,700,000 casualties, etc. etc. etc.
    This is all human 'evil', with that judgement made by a free moral agent, applying his internal values against the atrocities of man. If there was no such 'internal values', then you would just shrug off these actions as just amoral events, with no moral significance.

    The very fact that you label & consider these things as 'evil!' shows you have a built-in moral compass, able to see violations of this Natural Law, embedded in mankind.

    You did not go to some kind of Morality Buffet, & wander through, picking & choosing which values you wanted to have, & which ones you didn't. They came as a package, & you are stuck with them. Maybe some of them you have managed to shrug off, especially after repeated violations, but the original 'sting' of conscience came with all of them.
    Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. ... It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ~Frédéric Bastiat

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to usfan For This Useful Post:

    Knightkore (Yesterday)

  5. #104
    Alumni Member
    Overall activity: 32.0%

    Dan40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    24,394
    Thanks
    945
    Thanked: 12,335
    Rep Power
    21474865
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    This is all human 'evil', with that judgement made by a free moral agent, applying his internal values against the atrocities of man. If there was no such 'internal values', then you would just shrug off these actions as just amoral events, with no moral significance.

    The very fact that you label & consider these things as 'evil!' shows you have a built-in moral compass, able to see violations of this Natural Law, embedded in mankind.

    You did not go to some kind of Morality Buffet, & wander through, picking & choosing which values you wanted to have, & which ones you didn't. They came as a package, & you are stuck with them. Maybe some of them you have managed to shrug off, especially after repeated violations, but the original 'sting' of conscience came with all of them.
    I DO shrug off man's animalistic treatment of man. You are the one clinging to artifical and false human moralities.

    WWII 61+ MILLION CASUALTIES.

    JUST ONE MORE IN THE thousands AND thousands OF MASS KILLINGS of man by man. What is the up to date total of the "Religion of Peace?"

    #BlackLIESMatter

    I VOTED FOR THE PRESIDENT!

    Political Correctness is HATE SPEECH!

    THE GREATEST DANGER TO THE USA IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

  6. #105
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P
    Overall activity: 86.0%

    Sled Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    27,464
    Thanks
    5,799
    Thanked: 15,130
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    21474867
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    Introspection.
    Read "In Pursuit of Belly Button Lint".

    Balance.
    Three beams are better than one.

    Tolerance.
    If the drawing calls out a dimension to two decimal places, the tolerances is +/- 0.030. If three places, the tolerance is +/- 0.010, for linear dimensions. Angular dimensions are tolerance differently, as are surfaces and profiles and planarity and co-linearity, etc.

    Personally my tolerance for ignorance of your type is non-existent.
    Scientific Methodology.
    I'm not teaching you that. Time for you to learn something on your own.

    Due Process.
    Are you under indictment?

    Reason.
    I use it, you wish for it.

    You really should hang it up. You've been shredded, cross cut, and composted.

    It's pretty funny, you being forced to post my shredding of your position as blocks of text and then posting your own walls of unreadable drivel as some sort of "rebuttal".

    You're supreme in your incompetence and lame open dishonesty.

    Be a real man, put me on ignore so you won't have to suffer the humiliation of watching me shred the next bits of nonsense you post.
    Last edited by Sled Dog; Yesterday at 01:41 AM.
    Freedom Takes "I Won't". - Eric Frank Russell

    Trump has been President for 112 days and Ruth Bader Ginzberg hasn't had the decency to die. What's up with that?

  7. #106
    Justice & Truth V.I.P
    Overall activity: 60.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sedona, Az USA
    Posts
    9,842
    Thanks
    11,787
    Thanked: 7,139
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    21474850
    Quote Originally Posted by Sled Dog View Post
    Read "In Pursuit of Belly Button Lint".
    More of your 'books' you claim are 'evidence!' Did you write this one?
    Three beams are better than one.
    one of them is in your eye..

    If the drawing calls out a dimension to two decimal places, the tolerances is +/- 0.030. If three places, the tolerance is +/- 0.010, for linear dimensions. Angular dimensions are tolerance differently, as are surfaces and profiles and planarity and co-linearity, etc.
    Personally my tolerance for ignorance of your type is non-existent.
    I didn't think you knew what it meant. That is why your social skills are so non-existent.
    I'm not teaching you that. Time for you to learn something on your own.
    Are you under indictment?
    I use it, you wish for it.
    You really should hang it up. You've been shredded, cross cut, and composted.
    It's pretty funny, you being forced to post my shredding of your position as blocks of text and then posting your own walls of unreadable drivel as some sort of "rebuttal".
    In your dreams. You don't have anything that resembles 'logic!'.. just ad hominem, ridicule, & hysterical, jihadist religious faith, in your naturalistic system. You won't debate the facts, or the evidence, or address studies, or any typical debating discussions that civilized people have done for centuries, but you dive headlong into the leftist style of emotional hysteria, ridicule, & derision.
    You're supreme in your incompetence and lame open dishonesty.
    Typical deflection, from a lying poster. You accuse others of doing what you do. I have given you sound reasoning, which you ignore & ridicule. But i am getting sick of your schtick, & throwing it back in your face.
    Be a real man, put me on ignore so you won't have to suffer the humiliation of watching me shred the next bits of nonsense you post.
    No, a 'real man' would not stand idly by while hateful, irrational fools insulted, demeaned, & ridiculed every poster that did not agree with everything they said. I'm sick of your crap, your constant demeaning, & your pretense of 'logic!' You give reason a bad name, & make science into a dark ages religion. Your dogmatism exposes you as a True Believer, with no reasoning skills.. just hatred & insults.

    You wanted this dance with me, so i'm giving it to you. I don't expect you would like it, as i am pretty accurate with my Truth Spears, & i suspect i have hit you many times where it hurts. I'm sorry if it caused you discomfort, but you need to back off.. grow a pair... be a man, & show a little respect, tolerance, & introspection. You are not omnipotent, just an arrogant fool, who tries to bluff his way through intimidation. That does not work with me, as i have shown you.

    You can ignore my posts, or pretend they are too long, or try to come up with more witty one liners, but the Truth of my posts here should give you pause. I offer them as a sincere reproval, for your over the top posting style of insults & intimidation. I won't always respond to you like this, & i will get tired of the back & forth before you do. I respond like this to make a point. You do it naturally, for fun.
    Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. ... It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ~Frédéric Bastiat

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to usfan For This Useful Post:

    Knightkore (Yesterday)

  9. #107
    Senior Member
    Overall activity: 0%

    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    862
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked: 121
    Rep Power
    118612
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    Here are some of the problems, if you say all morality is man made & relative.
    1. There is no appeal to a 'Higher Law'. Conscience is meaningless. Only the decrees of the collective matter.
    1. Why would conscience be meaningless? It would still be our reaction to going against societal norms. And there's no real difference between "decrees of the collective" and "decrees of the collective interpreting what the Higher Law is." You're assuming that appeal to a Higher Law is superior, but that's assuming your conclusion.
    2. All 'laws' are based only on expediency. You keep the traffic flowing, & deter murder.. neither are more important or more 'moral' than the other.
      How did you reach that conclusion? The penalties for minor traffic offenses and for murder are quite different. The difference in severity for different crimes certainly shows that some are more important than others. And I've heard many Christians claim that all sin is equal to God.
    3. If some humans are inconvenient, or a nuisance, why not rid society of them? That was the eugenics view, & is the basis for the marxist/darwinist/naturalist philosophy.
      Well, the eugenics view was more to outbreed undesirable qualities. But the main reason not to adopt your policy of ridding society of undesirable's is that if you allow that, you're allowing yourself to be on the undesirable list. If the law allows you to get rid of the Jews or the Muslims, there's no reason the law couldn't allow someone else to get rid of the Catholics, or Baptists, etc.
    4. There is only power. If a group or individual can attain power, by any means, they can impose their values or beliefs on everyone else. There is no higher law to appeal to.
      Can you give me an example of an instance where appealing to a higher law prevented any group or individual from attaining power and imposing their values or beliefs on others? I didn't think so.
    5. 'Due Process', Human Equality, rights to life, liberty, & property are not natural rights, but gifts granted by a ruling elite.. and only if they choose to do so.
      And yet those rights can still be denied by the ruling elite even if you or I hold them to be natural rights.
    "It ain't bragging if you can do it." - Dizzy Dean

  10. #108
    Justice & Truth V.I.P
    Overall activity: 60.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sedona, Az USA
    Posts
    9,842
    Thanks
    11,787
    Thanked: 7,139
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    21474850
    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Why would conscience be meaningless? It would still be our reaction to going against societal norms. And there's no real difference between "decrees of the collective" and "decrees of the collective interpreting what the Higher Law is." You're assuming that appeal to a Higher Law is superior, but that's assuming your conclusion.
    'Conscience', as an expression of Natural Law, has no meaning to the unbeliever in natural law. How could it? All you have are either instincts, or indoctrinated values, from an outside source. There is no inner, moral compass, for the naturalist.


    [*] How did you reach that conclusion? The penalties for minor traffic offenses and for murder are quite different. The difference in severity for different crimes certainly shows that some are more important than others. And I've heard many Christians claim that all sin is equal to God.
    If there is no natural law, but only human decreed values, then any decreed value is arbitrary, with no moral implication. There are no moral absolutes, in the naturalistic, amoral, relativity based belief system. There is only expediency & the decrees of the powerful, who can enforce them. Penalties are also arbitrary, & are based only on the whims of those in power, if there is no underlying basis for Law.

    [*] Well, the eugenics view was more to outbreed undesirable qualities. But the main reason not to adopt your policy of ridding society of undesirable's is that if you allow that, you're allowing yourself to be on the undesirable list. If the law allows you to get rid of the Jews or the Muslims, there's no reason the law couldn't allow someone else to get rid of the Catholics, or Baptists, etc.
    Exactly. With no basis in moral absolutes, all you have are the arbitrary whims of the powerful. But that is not what we see in the history of man. We see humans indignant over their 'rights' being violated.. we see humans declaring their right to life, liberty, & property, based on a Law from God or Nature. We see the Enlightenment, where these concepts took off, & changed the world.

    And now we see darwinian principles of moral relativity, expediency, & power usurping the concepts of natural law, & dragging us back to the dark ages, where might made right, & the common man was bullied to believe he had to accept the oppression of the aristocratic elite.

    [*] Can you give me an example of an instance where appealing to a higher law prevented any group or individual from attaining power and imposing their values or beliefs on others? I didn't think so.
    The American Experiment in self rule.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    The appeal to Natural Law, from the Enlightenment philosophers, was the basis for the American Revolution. It was the rallying cry to throw off the shackles of bondage & oppression, & to pursue self rule, as a united people. This unity was behind a common recognition of this 'inner law', of conscience. It was a recognition that human laws are only reflections of the natural laws already in place by God or Nature.
    [*] And yet those rights can still be denied by the ruling elite even if you or I hold them to be natural rights.[/LIST]
    That does not invalidate them as rights, just because there are oppressors that violate them. The very fact that you recognize the violations speaks to the reality of the 'rights'. If all were moral relativity, there would only be amoral decisions, with no significance either way. Nobody would complain about any 'violations!' as it is all just the whims of those in power. But that is not what we observe. We see people indignant over violations of their rights. We see outrage over injustice, & demands for securing the freedoms of the people. Even when it is used to disrupt as a twisted distortion of 'rights', the concept is there, & the 'rights' are felt, by those making the demands.
    Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. ... It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ~Frédéric Bastiat

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. pinqy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •